2025:HHC:7147 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1935 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kavita Kumari & Ors. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief: “(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to count the service rendered by petitioners on contract basis as Trained Graduate Teacher (Med) from 20.02.2014 & 24.02.2014 to 31.05.2017 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03-08-2023 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad & others in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and their clients shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2