IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8172 & 8176 of 2025 Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 8172 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Negi …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 8176 of 2025 Madan Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common reliefs, which have been extracted from CWP No.8172 of 2025: - i). To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider and count the contract service as rendered by followed by the Petitioner regularization as Regular service for all intents and purposes keeping in view the objectives of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 or as per earlier act of 1995 as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in Umesh Jaswal case ( CWP NO 5090 /2022 and Nitin Kumar case ( CWPOA 1077/2019) annexed as Annexure P-2 and P-3. The date of appointment on contract basis may be treated as date of appointment on regular basis. (b) That the Petitioner may be allowed all consequential benefits on account of above from due date i.e initial appointment on contract basis basis (1997)” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representations to the competent authority for the redressal of grievances raised in the writ petitions. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring - 3 - representations within two weeks from today. In case such a representations are so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 R.Atal