IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 3801 of 2009 with C.W.P. No. 3817, 3818, 3819, 3834, 3835,3836, 3837, 3838, 3839, 3847, 3848, 3849, 3850, 3851 of 2009. Decided on 10th March, 2011. _____________________________________________________ 1. Om Parkash. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 2. Yashwant Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 3. Anil Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 4. Narinder Singh Rana. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 5. Rekha Devi. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 6. Yoginder Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 7. Ramesh Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 8. Ashok Patyal. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 9. Yadvinder Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. - 2 - 10. Sanjeev Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 11. Anil Kumar. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 12. Chand Kishore. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 13. Inder Dutt Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 14. Sonika Jamwal alias Sonika Katoch. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. 15. Mohinder Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. (in all the petitions). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner, being a President of the Association, has already made a representation for the redressal of grievances of its members to the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 3 - Himachal Pradesh vide Annexure P-15. However, the same has not been decided till date. 3. Consequently, the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh to decide the representation made by the petitioner vide Annexure P-15 in CWP No. 3801 of 2009, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. It shall be open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of Principal Secretary (Health) all the notifications/guidelines issued on the subject of regularization by the State Government from time to time. The application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 10, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `