IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2162/2022 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Jai Singh & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Narender Guleria, Advocate vice Mr. Loveneesh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J This writ petition has been filed primarily seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners as regular appointees instead of contract appointees. Substantive relief prayed for by the petitioners runs as under:- “That Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that the petitioners are considered a regular appointee instead of contract appointee.” 2. Following order was passed in the matter on 07.11.2024:- “CMP No.19997 of 2024 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Application for early hearing is allowed on the basis of pleadings therein. Application to stand disposed of. CWP No.2162 of 2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respective cases of petitioners are similarly situated to the one decided in Kishore Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 1 , which was affirmed in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Kishore Kumar2 . Learned Additional Advocate General seeks four weeks’ time to take instructions, as to whether the cases of the petitioners are covered by the aforesaid judgment and to prepare the brief. Let the needful be done before next date of hearing. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for filing the rejoinder within the aforesaid period. List after four weeks.” 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 08.01.2025 from the Additional Director Ayush Himachal Pradesh, which inter-alia state that Sh. Kishore Kumar was appointed on contract basis as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer vide order dated 11-6-2004, whereas the present petitioners were also appointed on contract basis in the year 2004. Services of Sh. Kishore Kumar and the present petitioners were regularized under a common order dated 25.03.2013. Hence, the case of Kishore Kumar is similar to that of present petitioners. Relevant para from the said office instructions goes as under:- “In this context it is submitted that the petitioner Sh. Kishore Kumar was appointed on contract basis as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer vide order dated 11-6-2004 and Sh. Jai Singh and two other 3 petitioners were also appointed on the contract basis in the year 2004 and their services were also regularized vide order dated 25- 3-2013. Therefore, in view of the factual position enumerated above the petitioner Shri. Jai Singh is similarly situated to Sh. Kishore Kumar. However, since Sh. Kishore Kumar has filed CWP(T)No.11336/2008 for the grant of benefit of scale w.e.f 11-6- 2004. The same was granted as per the decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court in LPA No.41/2012 which was filed against the decision in CWP No.(T)11336/2008. As such the pay of the Kishore Kumar had been fixed on regular basis from the date of contractual appointment on notional basis.” 4. In view of the aforesaid instructions and the admission made by the respondents that the case of the present petitioners is similar to that of Sh. Kishore Kumar, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to grant the same benefits as have been granted to Sh. Kishore Kumar pursuant to the aforesaid decision. Direction issued in case of Sh. Kishore Kumar, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of present petitioners as well. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th January 2025(rohit)