IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14428 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anil Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to count the contractual service of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 appointment on contractual basis for all intents and purposes, i.e. seniority, pay scale as revised time to time, annual increments, proficiency step-up and promotion against the post of Senior Assistant, as per the judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of H.P. Annexure P-5. (ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the due dates with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization. (iii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 09.09.2024, Annexure P-6, within time bound manner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him 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 petitioner also submits that the representation dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 petitioner 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, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) 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 petitioner. 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 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh