IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6343 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “Writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to count the contractual service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on 13.07.2007 i.e. the date of initial appointment as Pump Operator on contract basis till 18.07.2014 i.e. the date of his appointment as Pump Operator on regular basis for the purpose of annual increment, promotion, fixation of pension with all consequential benefits and the period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension benefits.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to judgment dated 15th July 2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010, Sita Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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 the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 3 5. Consequently, in view of above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram’s case (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 appropriate orders and in case, petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in afore judgment, he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 13,2025 (shankar)