IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3027 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mahender Lal …….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:- “I. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioner for all service benefits including for the purposes of pay, annual yearly increments,leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension with all consequential benefits; II. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus further directing the respondent to count the services rendered by the petitioner as contract employee may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority etc and further directions may be issued to respondents to release all the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 in the light of judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Judgment in Taj Mohammad case as well as in Civil Writ Petition No.5043 of Registra2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli vs. State of Himachal Pradesh;” 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 dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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 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 3 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 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)