2025:HHC:3867 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2811 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjit Singh ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma and Mr. Nitin Rishi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a. That the Writ of mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to count uninterrupted contractual services of the petitioner from September, 2013 to July, 2017 followed by regularization for annual increments and qualifying service for pensionery benefits under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. b. That if the request of the petitioner was conceded and he found eligible for pensionary benefits under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 then arrear of pension from the date of superannuation i.e 31-8-24 be released in his favour with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated 10.12.2024, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.14870 of 2024, titled Som Dutt and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others, to state that issue 2025:HHC:3867 2 raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4), expeditiously, in terms of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of dispute and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, there appears to be no justification for this Court to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, who fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Som Dutt (supra). 5. Precisely, the prayer made in the instant petition is that service rendered by him, prior to his regularization, on contractual basis, deserves to be taken into consideration for calculating the qualifying service of pension and annual increment. Since issue with regard to counting of service rendered on contract basis for qualifying service has already been adjudicated in the judgment, pressed into service by the petitioner and aforesaid judgment is based on the 2025:HHC:3867 3 judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court sees no impediment to issue directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) in light of aforesaid judgments. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4), in light of judgment passed by this Court in Som Dutt (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge