IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.676 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.686 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.676 of 2025 Narender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.686 of 2025 Amit Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.676 of 2025 read as under:- “I. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioner for all service benefits including for the purposes of pay, annual yearly increments, leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension with all consequential benefits; II. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus further directing the respondent to count the services rendered by the petitioner as contract employee may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority etc and further directions may be issued to respondents to release 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. in the interest of justice and fair play in the light of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Judgment in Taj Mohammad case as well as in Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of 2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions, for claiming the 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 above reliefs are pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 4 The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh