2025:HHC:4105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2857 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tek Chand ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(a) That act of the respondent in not counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as HRTC Driver for the purpose of annual increment as well as pensionary benefits may kindly be held discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, unwarranted, invalid and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgments dated 10.01.2020 and 12.11.2024 (Annexure-P/4 & Annexure-P/5) in CWP No.2411/2019 titled as Jagdish Chand vs. State of H.P. and LPA No. 338/2024 titled as Narayan Dutt Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others and in judgment dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure-P/6) in CWPOA No. 195/2019 titled as "Sheela Devi Versus State of H.P. & others". (b) That the respondent may kindly be directed to count the entire service of the petitioner, including initial service on contract basis, followed by the regularization towards annual increment as well as pensionary benefits being a covered matter by the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 26.12.2019 (Annexure-P/6) in CWPOA No. 195/2019 titled as "Sheela Devi Versus State of H.P. & others" whereby the service rendered by the employees concerned on 2025:HHC:4105 2 contract basis has been ordered to be counted for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits and the respondent corporation is under legal duty to count the contract services of the petitioner for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-7 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation dated 02.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already 2025:HHC:4105 3 stands adjudicated in the judgment sought to be relied upon, passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra). 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 appropriate order thereupon. 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. March 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge