IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1433 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Achyut …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Virbahadur Verma, 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 the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the date of his initial appointment followed by his regularization for the purpose of annual increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and CWPOA No.3282 of 2019 titled as Dr. Ranjit Singh Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.” 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) 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 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 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. 3 Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 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 Taj Mohammad 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 March 06,2025 (shankar)