IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1263 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Raj & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Aashima Premy, proxy counsel for Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief: “(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to count the service rendered by petitioners on contract basis as Art & Craft Teacher (C&V) from 15-11-2016 to 14-05-2020 increment, for seniority, annual pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03-08-2023 titled as Taj Mohammad & others in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and his clients shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. March 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2