( 2025:HHC:832 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 and LPA No. 7 of 2025 Date of decision: 04.01.2025. State of H.P. & others ...Appellants. Versus Rajesh ...Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. P.P. Singh, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): CMP(M) No. 1919 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly support by the affidavit of Conservator of Forests, Circle Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., we find sufficient cause having been carved out by the applicants/appellants for not filing the appeal before this Court within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, delay of 95 days that has crept up in filing the appeal is condoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. It is clarified that the application for condonation of delay has been allowed without issuing notice to the respondent in view of the orders proposed to be passed hereinafter in the appeal. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 7 of 2025 3. Appeal be registered. 4. The respondent herein, by way of CWP No. 5827 of 2023, had made a prayer before the learned Writ Court to direct the respondents in the said writ petition to count his service rendered on contract basis for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits, in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as, Taj Mohammad & others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 3.8.2023. 5. It is not in dispute that the judgment passed in Taj Mohammad’s case (supra) has attained finality. 6. In Taj Mohammad (supra), the principle laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officer’s Association vs. State of Maharashtra & others (1990) -3- 2 SCC 715 that wherever the initial appointment, even though on contract basis, is made after following the recruitment and promotion rules, then the said service has to be counted for the purpose of seniority and consequential benefits, has been followed. This is what has precisely been directed by the learned Writ Court vide the impugned judgment. 7. There is no dispute on facts that the initial appointment of the respondent herein was on contract basis that too pursuant to selection process undertaken as per the relevant recruitment and promotion rules. That being so, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, which is based on settled proposition of law, as noticed above. 8. In result, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) (Satyen Vaidya) Chief Justice Judge 4th January, 2025 (kck)