IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 630/2024 Decided on: 02.01.2025 Anil Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to treat the petitioners who are initially appointed on contract basis, as regularly appointed Assistant Professors (college cadre) from the date of their initial appointment keeping in view the fact that their qualifications, mode of recruitment, responsibilities, fundamental duties remained the same as they were appointed against the sanctioned posts through regular selection process conducted by the H.P. Public Service Commission. (ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 purposes of annual increments, leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by granting the arrears along with interest @9% p.a in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of their grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring the representations within two weeks from today. In case, such representations are so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd January, 2025(rohit)