IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4343 of 2021 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Parvesh Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i). That the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization/work charge status as per the policy of 8 years as on 2007 and grant the benefit of the break period (due to cessation of work/non-availability of work in the year 1999,2000 and 2011) for the purpose of his eligibility, seniority and regularization/work charge status in terms of the judgment passed in Mohan Lal’s case as well as the judgment passed in Ravi Kumar’s case in CWP No.4489/2009 decided on 14.12.2009; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits w.e.f. due date in the interest of justice and fair play.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6468 of 2020, titled Uggam Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to states that issued sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his claim is considered and decided by the respondents in light of afore judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Uggam Ram’s case (supra)and no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by 3 Division Bench of this Court in Uggam Ram’s case(supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 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 appropriate orders. 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 April 03,2025 (shankar)