IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3837 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ranveer Singh …….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. Rupesh Kumar, proxy counsel vice Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Lalita Sharma, proxy counsel vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, 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 his initial date of appointment i.e. w.e.f.27.01.2006 with all consequential benefits alongwith upto date interest; (ii). That or in alternative, the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner immediately after one year i.e. in 2007 by modifying regularization order dated 28.12.2012 with all consequential benefits.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on 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 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 Ms. Lalita Sharma, learned proxy counsel, 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 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order 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 19,2025 (shankar)