IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.266 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.269 of 2025 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.266 of 2025 Amit Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.269 of 2025 Lekh Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.266 of 2025 reads as under:- “1. That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in “Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others”, CWP No.2004 of 2017. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the relief prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-2, for claiming the above relief are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh