IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6943 of 2023 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhag Singh …..Petitioner Versus HRTC and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count/reckon the contractual period of one year from 30.12.1996 to 30.12.1997 for the purpose of seniority, annual increment, pensionary benefits, promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector in terms of R&P Rules (Annexure P-4) and also for the purpose of earned leave by extending the benefits of the common judgment dated 03.08.2023 delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w C.W.P. No.629 of 2018 titled Shri Taj Mohammad and others Vs. State of H.P. and others and State of Himachal Pradesh & 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Anr. vs. Sh. Lekh Ram &others besides another judgment dated 08.08.2023 delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No.5043 of 2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli vs. State of H.P. & others (Annexure P-6 & P-7) with all consequential benefits and justice be done. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector from due date, when R&P Rules, 2015 were framed instead of 02.08.2023, as the petitioner had already served the respondent Corporation for over 17 years as on date of framing the R&P Rules in the year, 2015, with all consequential benefits by issuing writ of mandamus and justice be done. (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also be issued, directing the respondents to pay arrears flowing out of grant of annual increment and promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector from due date alongwith interest accrued thereon @ 9% per annum till its realization and justice be done.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 and Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P. and Ors.3. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 CWP No.5043 of 2022, decided on 08.08.2023 3 directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 4. Having regard to the afore-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 and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Taj Mohammad2 and Sunita Sangroli3 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh