IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.183 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bhupinder Kanwar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That the initial appointment of the petitioner may kindly be directed to be deemed to be on regular basis instead of contract basis with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. ii) That the pay of the petitioner may kindly be accordingly directed to be re-fixed w.e.f. initial appointment and pay etc. be released, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the judgment dated 4.10.2019 passed in LPA No. 21 of 2013, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Ravinder Kumar and judgment dated 6.3.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in - 2 - CWP No. 1684 of 2024, titled Parkash Chand and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, to state that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the competent authority to decide the claim of the petitioner in light of afore judgments. 3. Having regard to innocuous prayer made by the petitioner coupled with the nature of order proposed to be passed by this Court, there appears to be no justification to call for reply from the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while accepting the notice on behalf of the respondents fairly states that representation (Annexure P-9), if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings adduced on record vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner is that though at the time of his initial appointment to the post in question, there was no provision in Recruitment & Promotion Rules to make appointment on contract basis, but yet he was given appointment to the post in question on contract basis, which is contrary to the law laid down in Ravinder Kumar and Parkash Chand (supra). Since afore issue - 3 - already stands adjudicated in the judgments detailed herein above, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of afore judgments. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. 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. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge