IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8088/2024 Decided on: 18.11.2025 Dalip Kumar & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Even though the reply has not been filed, 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 the 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. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioners on regular basis along with all consequential benefits as per the 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 PGT/ Lecturer School Cadre in pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 28.08.2008 and advertisement notice dated 17.02.2009 vide Annexure P/2 (Colly). C. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated Nil, 2017 vide Annexure P/1. D. That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. E. 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 & Other versus State of Himachal Pradsh has been held entitled by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have wrongly rejected the cases of the petitioners under office order at Annexure P/1. That petitioners’ cases for regularization from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis were covered in terms of State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash2. Learned counsel further submitted that the reliefs claimed for by the petitioners were also claimed in Sukh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.3 , which was disposed of on the analogy of decision rendered in Ajay 2 LPA No. 54/2013 decided a/w connected matters on 04.10.2019 3 CWP No. 7523/2024 decided on 25.8.2025 3 Kumar Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.4, which has been implemented by the respondents-State under office order issued on 10.09.2025. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ cases for the reliefs claimed, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter and notwithstanding with the order at Annexure P-1, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th November, 2025(rohit) 4 CWPOA No. 1695/2019 decided on 04.10.2024