IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3645 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjeet Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis prior to his regularization as qualifying service for purpose of pension. (ii) That respondents may kindly be further directed to consider the case of petitioner for annual increments from initial date of appointment on contract basis. (iii) That in alternate respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for pension and increments as per law laid down by this Hon’ble court in its judgments passed in case of Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand, which further clarified in LPA 338/2024 and same treatment may also be extended to petitioner also.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10399 of 2020 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi and judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2411 of 2019 titled as Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of his grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a 2 period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgments. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3