IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16058 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Vimal Guleria ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the pastries, matter is heard at this stage and in view of nature of grievances projected by the petitioner, reply of the petition is not required to be called for. 3. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order/ communication dated 28.10.2024 that rejects the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - representation of the petitioner for counting his contractual service towards seniority, increments and consequential benefits. Petitioner, a Fisheries Officer, serving at Trout Fish Farm Barot, District Mandi, H.P. represented to the respondents- Fishery Department on 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) for grant of benefit of regularization of his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis alongwith all consequential and incidental service benefits in light of Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. 4. Respondents have rejected the representation on 28.10.2024 simply by stating that no specific guidelines/ instructions of the Government/Fisheries Department are there to consider contractual service for the purpose of seniority, increments, consequential benefits, etc. Quite obviously, the respondents have not even bothered to consider the decision relied upon by the petitioner for claiming the relief, which has been mentioned in his representation. 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017 decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023. - 3 - 5. Taking note of above, respondent No.2/Competent Authority is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner as represented by him vide Annexure P-3 dated 06.08.2024, in accordance with law and keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so taken be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 2, 2025 R.Atal