IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9934 of 2023 Decided on: 17.06 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Nitish Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Civil Writ Petition No. 4209 of 2019 (Nitish Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr) was instituted by the petitioner seeking directions to the respondents to bring his services on contractual establishment from due date with all incidental benefits. The writ petition came up hearing on 15.05.2023 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - when the factual aspects of the matter were thoroughly examined and the stand taken by the respondents for opposing the prayer of the petitioner was considered elaborately and rejected. The writ petition was allowed on 15.05.2023. Consequently, respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner Kullu, District Kullu was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his absorption on contract basis in terms of policy dated 06.03.2017 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. The Court also made observations that the petitioner had not worked on actual basis against the post of Data Entry Operator after August 2017, hence, he shall not be entitled for any financial benefit. However, services rendered by the petitioner were ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority on notional basis. 3. Pursuant to the above directions, respondents issued office order on 25.08.2023 rejecting the representation of the petitioner primarily on the ground that petitioner was not formally employed in the E-Governance Society and, therefore, was not eligible for absorption as per policy of the State Government dated 06.03.2017. - 3 - The above stand had already been taken by the respondents in CWP No. 4209 of 2019 and was rejected after examining the facts of the case. The observations made by the Court on the factual matrix of the case while deciding CWP No. 4209 of 2019 had not been considered at all by the respondents while passing the impugned order on 25.08.2023. 4. At this stage of the matter, hearing of the case was deferred to enable learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions in the matter from respondent No.2 who had passed the impugned order. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the basis of instructions imparted to her by respondent No.2 submits that:- The order impugned in this writ petition dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) be treated to have been withdrawn; Respondent No.2 will consider the case of the petitioner for absorption afresh strictly in terms of the observations made and directions issued in CWP No. 4209 of 2019 (Nitish Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr). 5. Since respondent No.2 has now withdrawn the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of - 4 - with direction to respondent No.2 consider the case of the petitioner afresh for absorption on contract basis in terms of policy dated 06.03.2017 in accordance with the observations made and letter and spirit of the analysis of the factual aspects of the case as considered in the aforesaid decision. The order, strictly in consonance with the aforesaid decision, be now passed within two weeks from today. Copy of order so passed, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 17, 2025 R.Atal