2025:HHC:5790 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16543 of 2024 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “1. That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider/treat the petitioner as having been appointed on regular basis from the date of her initial appointment on contract basis against the post of TGT (Arts) pursuant to office order dated 19.04.2021 for all intents and purposes. 2. This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments to which he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department w.e.f. 11.05.2018 with all 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:5790 2 consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5278 of 2022, titled as Gafoor Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 2025:HHC:5790 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gafoor Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)