IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2083 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:- “I. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments, as has been held by this Hon’ble Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as Jagdish Chand and Ors. v/s State of H.P. & others alongwith connected matters (Annexure P-1).” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by - 2 - Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as “Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors” (alongwith connected matters), decided on 10.1.2020 and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer having been made by the petitioners. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Jagdish Chand (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, - 3 - expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. March 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge