IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 16101 of 2008. Decided on: 23.06.2011. _______________________________________________ Suresh Verma. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has already made a representation for his regularization as Assistant Chemist. In fact, the case of the petitioner has duly been recommended by the Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Nahan vide Annexure A-2 dated 9th February, 2007 to the Engineer-in-Chief, I&PH Department, Shimla. 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The Engineer-in- Chief, I&PH is directed to consider the representation made by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - petitioner, on the basis of recommendations made by the Superintending Engineer, Nahan vide Annexure A-2, within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. In the eventuality of the petitioner being regularised, he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. June 23, 2011. (sck).