IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.210 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjeev Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.246 of 2025 Delay in re-filing the writ petition after removing the objections is condoned in view of the explanation given in the application. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.210 of 2025 2. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “a) That the respondents may be directed to give the regularization to the petitioners as members of service in the cadre of ‘Junior basic Teacher’ w.e.f. 01.10.2021, in compliance to the Government notification dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-2) after completion of 02 years of contract service as on 30.09.2021, with all other consequential benefits and interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f., the date when the same fell due till its actual realization, in the interest of law and justice. In the alternative, the petitioners may be given the regularization w.e.f. 29.12.2021 ‘or’ 30.12.2021 ‘or’ 31.12.2021 at par with the contract employees i.e. Patwaris of Revenue Department and Clerks of H.P. Secretariat, who completed 02 years contract service on 30.09.2021 (Annexure P-3 & P-4), with all consequential benefits and interest @ 12% per annum, in the interest of law and justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and the issues raised by them in the writ petitions are squarely covered in terms of the recent decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case they are permitted to prefer a comprehensive representation to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh