IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16066 of 2026. Decided on : 16 th September , 2026 Suresh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “a) That any appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to strictly implement the communication dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) and regularize the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.05.2024 & 30.04.2024 respectively i.e. the date when the petitioner completed their 11 years of combined service (7 years as part Time Water Carrier + 4 years daily wagers) with all consequential benefits i.e. pay fixation, arrears of salary, seniority and pensionary benefits etc. forthwith.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have issued an office order dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) conveying its approval for regularizing the services of Part-Time Water Carriers in Education Department on completion of 11 years of combined tenure i.e. 7 years Part-Time Water Carrier + 4 years daily wager. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 4 has regularized services of the petitioners under office order dated 04.06.2025 w.e.f. 04.06.2025, whereas the same was required to be regularized w.e.f. 31.05.2024 and 30.04.2024, respectively on completion of combined service of 11 years i.e. 7 years’ Part-Time Water Carrier + 4 years’ on daily wages. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representation, Annexure P-4 has not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in 3 accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above referred office order Annexure P-2. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 16th September, 2026. (jai)