IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3037 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dalip Singh …….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. Mukul Sood, 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “a. A writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant service benefit to the petitioners for the period of contractual service rendered by the petitioners and the said period be counted for the purpose of granting of annual yearly increments as well as towards pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits. b. A writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents department to considered the case of the petitioner for grant of service benefits to the petitioner in view of the judgment dated 01.04.2024 passed in CWPOA No. 78 of 2020 titled as Mool Raj and Others Vs 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State of H.P. CWP 2411 of 2019 titled as Jagdish Chand versus State of HP and others and the arrear accrued thereon be paid with along with interest from the date of ✓ accrual till the date of realization in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before 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-7) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.78 of 2020, titled as Mool Raj and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, along with connected matters, 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 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-7) of the petitioner expeditiously, 3 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Mool Raj case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner 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 April 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)