IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10248 of 2024 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Sunil Rayat. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):- “i). That an appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to treat the petitioners who are initially appointed on contract basis, as regularly appointed Assistant Professors (college cadre) from the date of their initial appointment keeping in view the fact that their qualifications, mode of recruitment, responsibilities, fundamental duties remained the same as they were appointed against the sanctioned posts through regular selection process conducted by the H.P. Public Service Commission. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the purposes of annual increments, for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by granting the arrears along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. -3- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th January, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)