2025:HHC:8978 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5105 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Parveen Bala ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Verma, 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, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of contractual services w.e.f. 09-10-1998 till 01-01-2007 as qualifying services for the purpose of seniority, promotion, increments and pensionary benefits as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Court in Sheela Devi's, Jagdish's and Sh.Taj Mohammad's cases mentioned in Para supra, which all are upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, deprive the same to the petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. April 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2