IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10945 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manoj Kumar Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K .Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order Annexure P-6 dt. 29.02.2024. ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered b the Petitioner on contract basis w.e.f. 05.11.1994 to 31.08.2006 prior to his regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of seniority, pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972, annual increments and leave encashment, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated - 2 - 3.8.2023, passed in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge