IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16032 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anil Kumar Jaswal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents no.1 and 2 to decide the representation of the Petitioner in time bound manner; and/or II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondents no.1 & 2 to count the service rendered by the Petitioner on 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 contract for the purpose of seniority and grant all consequential benefits thereafter; and/or III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare/redraw the seniority list of JOA (IT) accordingly after counting the service of the Petitioner on contract basis.” 4. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh