IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10386 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to treat the contractual appointment/ service of the petitioner as Primary Assistant Teacher 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (PAT) w.e.f. 13.09.2007 as regular service with consequential benefits and thus consequential modify/quash the order dated order dated 13.09.2007 Annexure P-1, as well as 17.08.2020 Annexure P-2 accordingly. b. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to give the benefit of regular service to the Petitioner with effect from the initial dates of their appointment on contractual terms ( i.e. 13.09.2007) with all consequential benefits, for all intents and purposes along with interest. c. Consequentially Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to consider the service of the Petitioners to be reckoned for seniority and for all terminal benefits as and when they fall due and pay of the Petitioner accordingly be fixed. d. Accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to pay arrears of salary payable to the Petitioner on regular basis w.e.f.13.09.2007 and be computed and paid over to them within one month from the date of the order along with interest and all consequential benefits. e. In Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case by directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 16.07.2024 in terms of the law as well as the Judgment dated 22.08.2022 in CWP No.1077/2019 (Nitin Kumar vs State of HP), within a time bound manner.” 4. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner has already been considered and decided in Nitin Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another2. Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the respondents on 2 CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, decided on 22.8.2022 3 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), however, the said representation has not been decided till date. Learned vice counsel also submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to prefer a fresh comprehensive representation to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority for the redressal of his grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Nitin Kumar2 within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh