2025:HHC:28549 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7523 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sukh Dev and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That act of the respondent by way of impugned order (annexure P- 6) in not counting the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis as Lecturers for the purpose of regularization from the initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits may kindly be held unconstitutional, discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 02-05-2012 in CWP No. 7602 of 2010 (Annexure P-3). (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to regularized the services of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment on contract basis along with all consequential in view judgment passed in CWP No. 7602 of 2010 (Annexure P-3). In the interest of justice and fair play or in alternative the service rendered by the petitioners on contractual basis be counted for the purpose of increment, seniority, career progression scheme and for pension with all consequential benefits.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:28549 2 2. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply to the petition has been filed. Initially on 31.07.2024, time was granted to respondents to file reply, but till date, no reply has been filed. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners afresh, in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ajay Kumar Thakur and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another, passed in CWPOA No.1695 of 2019, decided on 04.10.2024, in a time bound manner. 3. While placing on record copy of office order dated 18.08.2025, issued under the signatures of Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that in similar facts and circumstances, similar situate persons have been granted the benefits, as has been prayed for in the instant petition. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners afresh in light of Ajay Kumar Thakur (supra). Learned 2025:HHC:28549 3 Additional Advocate General is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners afresh in light of Ajay Kumar Thakur (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall take note of office order dated 18.08.2025, whereby in purported compliance of mandate contained in Ajay Kumar Thakur (supra), benefit, as prayed for by the petitioner, has already been granted to similar situate persons. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)