IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2815 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Angesh Nath Dhiman …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “A. That entire record pertaining to the instant case may kindly be summoned and subjected to scrutiny by this Hon’ble Court. B. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the period of contract service of the petitioner for the purpose pension , annual increments and all other consequential benefits. C. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to decide the pending representation dated: 29/08/2024 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner in time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply 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 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.77 of 2021, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Aman Rehalia and Another, 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 and Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly state 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 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 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 Division Bench of this Court in Aman Rehalia 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 April 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)