IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5982 of 2024 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Om Prakash and Anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed the reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering appointment to the petitioner on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - under “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973", may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation to the R & P Rule. B. That the respondents may kindly be considered the services of the petitioners on regular basis along with all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the "Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973" since the date of their joining on contract basis. C. That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. D. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 along with connected matters and the petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 has been held entitled by this Hon'ble Court and same has been implemented vide office order dated 01-12-2023..” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in State of H.P. and others Versus Om Prakash2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the 2 LPA No. 54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 04.10.2019 - 3 - representation dated (Annexure P-5) preferred by the petitioners, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/ Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 19, 2025 R.Atal