IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.106 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Navin Thakur & Anr ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned action of the Respondents whereby the petitioner has been denied the counting of contractual 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - service as qualifying service for the purpose of promotion /increment/ seniority/ pension and other consequential benefits. B. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to count the contractual services for the purpose of qualifying service for next promotional post and the same may also be counted for the grant of annual increment/seniority and other consequential benefits i.e., qualifying service for the purpose of promotion and pensionary benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for grant of above prayers, petitioners had preferred representation dated 20.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2. Petitioners had claimed increments on account of contractual services rendered by them. The representation has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that relief prayed for by the petitioners has already been adjudicated in several decisions rendered by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. Some of these decisions have been noticed in Budhi Singh and others Vs. State of HP - 3 - and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be content in case they are permitted to file representation(s) to the respondent/ Competent Authority for redressal of their grievance and the respondent/Competent Authority is directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed by permitting the petitioner to file representation(s) within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondent No.2/Competent Authority within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law and also keeping in view the aforesaid judgment. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 3, 2025 R.Atal 2 CWP No. 10911 of 2024 decided on 21.10.2024