IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7179 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Randeep Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed therein, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that prayer made on behalf of petitioner to count the service rendered by him on contract basis for the purpose of pension and annual increments. Since this Court, in a catena of judgments, has already adjudicated upon the aforesaid issue, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed therein, in a time bound manner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed therein, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 27, 2025 (Sunil)