2025:HHC:7146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1937 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jiwan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K.Sharma, 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, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the purposes of annual increments, leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by granting the arrears along with interest @9% p.a in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2