IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.624 of 2024 Decided on: 25.06.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamlesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No. 14091/2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 624/2024 Even though no reply has been by the respondents, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of Shastri Teacher (OT) being a Locomotor disabled person pursuant to office order dated 04.05.2021 on regular basis for all intents and purpose and further this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word ‘contract’ from the appointment letter, dated 04.05.2021 Annexure P-2 granting him regularization from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 04.05.2021. b) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondents board w.e.f. Petitioner’s date of appointment i.e. 04.05.2021 with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Umesh Jaswal Versus State of H.P. & others and the connected matters2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent 2 CWP No.5090 of 2022 decided on 19.12.2022 3 authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Umesh Jaswal2, supra, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 25, 2025 Judge rohit