IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1701 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rohit Kumar and others …….Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “ i) That the appropriate writ, order or directions may very kindly be issued and the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for the purposes of promotion, increments, pensionary benefits and all other consequential benefits. Further directing the respondents to grant the arrears to the petitioners alongwith interest @ 12% per annum; ii) That the appropriate writ, order or directions may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioners to the next promotional post from the date when the petitioners acquired the eligibility after counting the contract service and thereafter consequential benefits be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 granted in their favour from the date, they became due for the promotion as the requisite criteria for the promotion is seven years of service in the grade in which the petitioners are serving.” 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-3 colly) are 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-3 colly ) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered 3 accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing 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 12,2025 (shankar)