IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1137 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Harish Chander Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: 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, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “A) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis i.e. w.e.f. 13.04.2006 to 29.07.2013, as qualifying service for the purpose of annual increments and other retiral benefits under Central Civil Services Pension Rules 1972, in view of the law laid down in Sheela Devi Case Supra and upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, CWP No. 2411/2019 titled as Jagdeesh Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and LPA 338/2024 titled as Narayan Dutt Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and other batch of petitioner. - 2 - B) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction the respondent to grant the benefit of contract service for the purpose all consequential benefits including increments and qualifying service for pensionary benefit.” 2. Before reply could be elicited from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court CWP No. 2411 of 2019 titled Jagdeesh Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Principal Division Bench and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though the case of the petitioner is not covered by the aforesaid judgment, but representation, if any, filed shall be considered in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing - 3 - the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. 5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge