IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6602 of 2024 Decided on: 30.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaman Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1,2,4 and 5. Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Sr. Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) The petitioner may please be regularized from the dátes of his initial appointment i.e. 09/03/2006 and the period rendered in service on contract followed by regular may please be counted towards the length of his services for all consequential benefits. b). All the consequential benefits viz., grant of the regular pay scale, and pay for the contractual period, with effect from 2006 till the date of regularization. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 c). Correction of revision of pay band in 2008 and 2016 and considering the contractual period of service of the petitioner for determining the pension in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in Sheela Devi VS State of HP & Ors which stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil No. 10399/ of 2020 decided on 7/08/2023 titled as State of HP & Ors. V/S Sheela Devi & Ors may please be awarded /granted /approved in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that case of the petitioner, issues raised by him in the petition, reliefs claimed and the defence of the respondents thereto have already been considered and adjudicated upon in Anil Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others2, which was disposed of with the following operative directions:- . “10. Consequently, in view of discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of continuity of service, meaning thereby, petitioner shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of his initial appointment, but he shall not be entitled to actual benefits for the aforesaid period, till his regularization, rather service for the afore period shall only be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority as well as retiral benefits. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for 2 CWP No.6603 of 2024 decide don 21.11.2025 3 quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 3. It is an admitted position of the learned counsel for the parties that the directions issued in Anil Kumar2 will squarely apply to the instance case as well. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the order that the directions issued in Anil Kumar2 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the instant case as well. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 30, 2025 Judge R.Atal