IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10078 of 2025 Decided on: 24th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Barjeet 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. Rupesh Kumar and Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had represented to the respondents for extending the benefit of the decision rendered in Nitin Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 another2. Petitioner’s precise grievance before the respondents was that he had been appointed on contract basis in the respondent-Animal Husbandry Department on 23.11.2006 as a Person belonging to Physically Handicapped category. His services were regularized on 28.10.2010, whereas, in accordance with the aforesaid decision rendered in Nitin Kumar2, his services were required to be treated as regular with effect from the date of his first appointment on contract basis. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner’s aforesaid representation was forwarded on 17.02.2025 to respondent No.2, who rejected the same on 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-6). Hence, the grievance. 4. Order/office communication dated 01.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2 though takes note of the fact that the petitioner had based his claim upon Nitin Kumar2, but there is no discussion in the order about the applicability of said decision to the facts of petitioner’s case. Order/office communication dated 01.04.2025 simply records that petitioner’s services were not regularized w.e.f. 28.10.2010, but from 11.05.2013. This fact has no bearing on the relief claimed by the petitioner. Hence, for that 2 CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2022 3 reason alone, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by examining the facts of his case in light of the law laid down in Nitin Kumar2 and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh