IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3125 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Prakash Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ___________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioner for all purposes including the purposes of annual increments, leave encashment, pension and seniority alongwith other consequential benefits after counting his contract service from the date of his initial appointment by granting the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 arrears alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-3 colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly state that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3 colly) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered 3 accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 06,2025 (shankar)