1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6414 of 2024 Decided on: 16.12.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sushil Kumar Chambial and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A) That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering appointment to the petitioners on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment as per R&P Rule on vogue at the time of initiation of the recruitment process, may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation to the R & P Rule. B) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioners on regular basis alongwith all consequential benefits as per the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 provisions of the “Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973” since the date of their initial joining on contract basis as PCT/Lecturer School Cadre in pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 28.08.2008 and advertisement notice dated 17.02.2009 vide Annexure P/1 (Colly). C). That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. D). That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 and LPA No.500/2013 and the petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 and in Civil Writ Petition No. 9135 of 2023 titled as Anil Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh has been held entitled by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grievances of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed by them have already been adjudicated upon in State of H.P and others versus Om Prakash2 and Ajay Kumar Thakur and others versus State of H.P and another.3 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners would be content, in case, respondents are directed to consider their case for redressing their grievances raised by them in this writ petition, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 2LPA No.54 of 2013, decided on 04.10.2019 a/w connected matters. 3CWPOA No. 1695 of 2019, decided on 04.10.2024. 3 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 December 16, 2025 Judge yogesh