IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3703 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Tara Chand …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ (i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner from initial date of appointment i.e. 02.11.2004 in terms of judgment passed in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 Vikram Singh vs. HRTC; (ii). That or in alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner immediately after one year service from date of appointment with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 15.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 15.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order 3 thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18,2025 (shankar)