IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15352 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ajay Chauhan 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. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, 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 matter is heard at this stage. 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered on contract basis with effect from 17.07.2010 to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 07.05.2016 for the purpose of seniority, final increments and all other consequential benefits including the higher pay grade, arising therefrom, in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Apex Court in Direct Recruit Case as well as by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad Versus State of H.P. decided on 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-3). ii) That the due and admissible arrear be paid to the petitioner along with interest and other consequential benefits.” 4. Learned vice counsel appearing 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 vice counsel also submits that the representations (Annexure P-4 Colly.) preferred by the petitioners for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with the respondents. Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are 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 case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 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, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4 Colly.) 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh