IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17251 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Akshay Kumar and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “I. That the Office Order dated 19th April, 2017, issued by the Office of the Director of Higher Education be declared as illegal, arbitrary whereby, the legitimate claim of the petitioner for regularization from initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 1811 of 2008, titled as Dev Raj & Others vs. State of H.P. & Others, has been rejected by misconstruing and mis-appreciating the ratio laid down in the said judgment and hence, be quashed and set aside. II. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the lien and continuous cause of action of the petitioner from the year 2017, when they have first espoused their cause by filing Original Application No. 927 of 2017, and consequent thereto, grant all consequential service - 2 - and monetary benefits in favour of petitioners from the date of their initial appointment in terms of applicable statutory rules, as their earlier claim was illegally rejected by the respondents vide (Annexure P-6).” 2. Petitioner had made a representation to the respondents seeking deemed regular appointment from the date of initial appointment on contract basis on the analogy of decision rendered in Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P. and Others, titled as CWP No. 1811 of 2008 alongwith connected matters, decided on 14.11.2014. Respondent No.2 rejected the aforesaid representation vide order dated 19.04.2017 on the ground that in Dev Raj (supra), post had been advertised on regular basis, but appointments were offered on contract basis, whereas in case of petitioners, the post had been advertised on contract basis, as such, petitioners were appointed on contract basis. It was concluded that there was no question of conferring deemed appointment on regular basis upon the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment on contract basis. 3. Petitioners seek quashing of the aforesaid order on the ground that the relief claimed by the petitioners has already been allowed by the respondents under office order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) to similarly situate persons in terms of LPA No.21 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Ravinder Kumar, decided on 4.10.2019. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners afresh in light of office order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) and Ravinder Kumar (Annexure P-7). Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, notwithstanding order dated 19.04.2017, (Annexure P-6), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents /Competent Authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners afresh in light of office order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-11) and judgment in Ravinder Kumar (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law within six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. November 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge