2025:HHC:5694 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1693 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, 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 act of the respondents in not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as TGT (Medical) for the purpose of seniority and incremental benefits may kindly discriminatory, be held arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court on dated 3-8-2023 in CW.P. No. 2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25-5- 2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3337/2016. (ii) That the respondents may kindly directed to count the entire services of the petitioner, including initial service on contract basis, followed by regularization towards seniority alongwith all consequential benefit being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 3-8- 2023 in CW.P. No. 2004/2017 a/w C.W.P. No. 629/2018 upholding the judgment dated 25-5-2017 passed by the erstwhile Ld. H.P. Administrative Tribunal in Ο.Α. No. 3337/2016 whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of seniority along with consequential benefits and the respondent department is under legal duty to count the Contract services of the petitioner for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits.” 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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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 2 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 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3