IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10966 of 2023 Decided on: 25th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Koncho Namgial and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though respondent No.2 has not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents directing them to regularize the services of the petitioners on and w.e.f. 01-04-2018 when they completed three years services on contract basis, in terms of notification dated 11-05-2018 with all consequential benefits in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Writ Petition No.342 of 2021 titled as Yashwant Singh and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others (Annexure P-1). 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents to release all financial benefits such as pay, annual increment etc. w.e.f. 01-04-2018 after having regularized their services in terms of notification dated 11-05-2018 along with interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. In the short reply, which appears to have been filed by the Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, i.e. respondent No.3, the stand taken is that services of petitioner No.2 have been regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2018 instead of 20.08.2020 with all consequential benefits under order dated 29.11.2024. The copy of said order has also been appended alongwith the short reply as Annexure R-I. The further stand taken in the short reply is that grievances of petitioner No.1 raised in the petition pertain to the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh-respondent No.2. As observed earlier, reply has not been filed by respondent No.2. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the grievances of petitioner No.2 have been redressed, but the grievances of petitioner No.1 still remain. That petitioner No.1 would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide his case in light of the decision rendered in Yashwant Singh and others vs. State of 3 Himachal Pradesh and others2 within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy 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 with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of petitioner No.1 in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also 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 June 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh 2 CWP No.342 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.08.2022