IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1579 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Neelam Rani and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in “Taj Mohammad v . State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,” CWP No. 2004 of 2017. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 case their pending representations (Annexure P-2 Colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 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 representations, if any, 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 representations (Annexure P-2 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing 3 to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 07,2025 (Rajeev Raturi)