IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14213 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sahil Singh and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “a) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 30.04.2024 Annexure P-6 (Colly) whereby the petitioners requested to count the contract service towards total length of service for grant of Promotion may kindly be allowed.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that her clients would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case their pending representation (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, fairly state that they are not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in 3 appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)