IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.652 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Savita Rani and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, 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:- “(a) That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis through RKS i.e. from the year 2009 as well as their services continuing with the Respondent 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Department on Government contract basis from 2013 and being regularized in the year 2017, (b) That the Respondent Authority be directed to give all benefits from the date of their initial appointment i.e., in the year 2009 followed by their regularization, for the purpose of increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in Taj Mohammad Case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs 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 also submits that the representation dated 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) preferred by the petitioners for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners (Annexure P-7) 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 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