IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5975 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “A. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioners rendered on contract basis from to 10-09-2018 to 26-10-2021 for the purpose of seniority, increments/pension and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2004/2017. Titled as Taj Mohammad & ors Vs State of HP & Ors.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case their pending representations (Annexure P-5) 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, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representations, if any, filed by the petitioners 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 representations (Annexure P-5) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners 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 3 decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 11,2025 (Rajeev Raturi)