IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4939 of 2021 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Randhir Singh Thakur …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Dulta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ (i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to regularize the services of the petitioner as Computer Operator after completion of three years of contractual service from due date in view of the policy dated 4th May 2017 Annexure P/10 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for regularizing the contractual employees in the State of Himachal Pradesh; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay all the consequential benefits accruing on account of the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator i.e. regular pay scale, increments, arrears etc. alongwith interest; (iii) That the respondent No.3 be also directed to produce the entire record pertaining to this case as well as the regularization of other contractual employees in HP Institute of Public Administration (HPA) (SIRD).” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, by way of filing reply respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not the employee of the Government, rather was appointed through DOEACC society. 3. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically invited attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondents to the un- amended petition, wherein it has been stated that petitioner has been granted benefit of Computer Operator in SIRD at par with MGNREGA Computer Operators in accordance with the policy framed by the Rural Development Department from time to time as conveyed vide letter dated 28.05.2020(Annexure R-VIII), to state that afore issue already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 10354 of 2023, titled Subhash Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in light of aforesaid judgment. Learned Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are 3 directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in light of judgment supra. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 05,2025 (shankar)