IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.650 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neeraj Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, 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 matter is heard at this stage. 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to count the entire contractual service rendered by petitioner towards seniority, increment and other service benefits along with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 II. That the respondent department may kindly be directed to extend same and similar benefits to the petitioner as has been extended to the similarly situated persons in light of judgments passed by this Hon'ble court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No.629/2018 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad &. others vs State of H.P. & others, CWPOA No.1745 of 2020 titled Chaman Lal & others vs State of H.P. & others along with interest @ 12% per annum. III. That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within time bound manner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him 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 also submits that the representation dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 06.11.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 petitioner. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh