IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.392 of 2025 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamlesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.514 of 2025 The applicant/petitioner has explained the reasons for delay in re-filing the writ petition after removing the objections. Hence, the application is allowed. Delay in re-filing the writ petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.392 of 2025 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 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:- “a. That respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis against the post of JBT w.e.f. 06.02.2014 for the purpose of pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, grant of annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits on the basis of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment passed in CWP/2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others decided on 03.08.2023, which judgment has been duly implemented by the respondents. b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 02.09.2024 of the petitioner in time bound manner in view of above mentioned judgment.” 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 also submits that the representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the 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 dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh