The court emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's representation and providing an opportunity for personal hearing before making a decision.

JUDGMENT

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. - With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the fact that he has continuously been representing the respondent No.1, the Secretary (Higher Education), his representations are not being considered by the respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his date of regularization is not being considered as 03.07.2003, instead it is being considered as 03.10.2011.

Secondly, the other consequential benefits of regularization from the due date are not being given to him.

Thirdly, even the service benefits of senior scale, selection grade under the Career Advancement Scheme, 2001, and the pensionary benefits extended to others, are not being granted to the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, he has submitted representations on 19.10.2018, 17.11.2020, and on 10.06.2021, to the respondent No.1. However, so far, none of these representations have elicited any reaction. Therefore, he prays that the respondent No.1 should be directed to consider his representation within a period of four weeks.

5. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, submits that once an order is passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 shall certainly consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.06.2021.

6. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is directed to consider the representation dated 10.06.2021, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The said exercise shall be carried out, and concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.

7. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.