IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16680 of 2025 Decided on: 28th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tek Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Mohit Dogra, Advocates. 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 the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-6) (sic Annexure P-7) qua the present petitioners. ii) Issuing a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners w.e.f. 01.04.2018 at par to the other PTA teachers in view of the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.342 of 2021 titled as Yashwant Singh vs State of HP, as being done in the case of similar situated person 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 vide Annexure P-8 and further for counting the services of petitioner w.e.f. 19-09-2006 for purpose of pension, in view of the decision of this Hon’ble Court dated 07.10.2025 in CWP No.10783 of 2024 titled as Lalit Sen Vs State of H.P. & Ors. along-with all the consequential benefits for all intent and purposes. iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioners accordingly and to calculate & pay arrears of salary consequent upon regularization of service w.e.f. 01.04.2018 along- with seniority etc. in service.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner was one of the petitioners in Ravi Kant and others Versus State of H.P. and others2. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners therein in light of Yashwant Singh and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another3. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it under order dated 11.03.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue of counting the service rendered prior to regularization on contractual basis as well as on PTA basis against sanctioned posts while computing the qualifying service, was recently adjudicated upon in Lalit Sen Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.4. In the said decision, the respondents were directed to grant 2 CWP No.10575 of 2023, decided on 22.12.2023 3 CWP No.342 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.08.2022 4 CWP No.10783 of 2024, decided on 07.10.2025 3 pension to the petitioner therein taking into consideration the entire service rendered by him in temporary, contractual and regular capacity before his superannuation. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner’s case is covered by the decision in Lalit Sen4 and the reasoning given by the respondents in order dated 11.03.2024, rejecting petitioner’s case, has already been considered and discarded in Lalit Sen4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a fresh representation (Annexure P-8) to respondent No.2, seeking redressal of his grievances in light of the recent decision. Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of his grievances and the competent authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law keeping in view the decisions rendered in Yashwant Kumar3 and Lalit Sen4. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of the factual position, notwithstanding the order dated 11.03.2024 (Annexure P-7), this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent 4 authority within two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Yashwant Singh3 and Lalit Sen4 within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh