2025:HHC:4135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1061 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Suman Gupta & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “ That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis prior to their regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and for the purpose of annual increments, in the interest of justice.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4135 case their pending representation dated 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi versus State of H.P. 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 filed by the petitioners 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 01.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be 3 2025:HHC:4135 decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 01,2025 (shankar)