IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2339 of 2009. Date of Decision: 04.09.2014. Kishori Lal …. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others …. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Narender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri and Mr. Tarun Pathak, Dy. A.Gs. for the respondents. Sureshwar Thakur, J.(Oral): The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief:- “1. To issue writ of mandamus to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Class-IV employee from 1999 from the date he had qualified for regularization as per R & P Rules, with all consequential relief.” 2. The petitioner who is working as a Part Time Worker and was posted at Ayurvedic Health Centre, Drobar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur since 1.5.1989 has prayed for regularization of her services as Class-IV employee on completion of 10 years service as per the Rules Annexure P-3. 3. The petitioner has alleged that the persons junior to him have been regularized, but has not given the necessary particulars of such persons, so that appropriate 2 reply could be filed by the respondents. In the absence of the particulars, no reply was filed by the respondents of the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the petition shall be treated as representation to the respondents and necessary particulars shall be furnished on record by the petitioner and in case, any junior person to the petitioner have already been granted the benefit, the petitioner shall be entitled to the similar relief. Accordingly, the petition shall be treated as representation to respondent No.2, who shall dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The necessary particulars shall be furnished by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 within a period of one week from the date of supply of the copy of this order. 5. In view of the above discussion, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. There is no order as to costs. 4th September, 2014. (Sureshwar Thakur) (TM) Judge.