2025:HHC:7135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1979 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Lalit Sharma & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis, from the date of their initial appointment followed by their regularization, for the purpose of annual increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in CWP/2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Ors Vs State of HP & Ors" And CWPOA/3282/2019 titled as Dr Ranjit Singh Thakur and others Vs State of HP and ors.” 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 client 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 petitioners 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 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2