2025:HHC:9244 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2963 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Suneel Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivom Vashista, 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, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioners on contract basis as regular basis w.e.f. 02.12.2014 alongwith all consequential benefits. (ii) Or in the alternative the respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the Petitioners on contract basis prior to their regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of seniority, pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972, for the purpose of annual increments and leave encashment, in the interest of justice.” 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 his client 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. Vishal Panwar, 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 six 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. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2