IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4595 of 2024 Date of Decision: 28.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Suresh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, for the State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in the facts and circumstances enumerated herein above a writ of mandamus may be issued, directing the respondents to count the contract period i.e. 26-02-1992 to 01-04-1999 for the purpose of all pensionary benefits and annual increments and revise all the pensionary benefits/entitlements accordingly and pay consequential benefits along with interest to the petitioner.” 2. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed by 3 & 5, whereas by way of filing reply, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have refuted the claim of the petitioner for regularization, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 16.9.2023, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 689 of 2019, titled as Dile Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (along with connected matters), to state that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his case in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Dile Ram (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the - 3 - instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. August 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge