IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2304 of 2024 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Santosh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i. That Annexure P-2 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to treat entire service of the petitioner as regular from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis w.e.f. 3.08.2013 with all benefits incidental thereof.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a qualified Engineer and was appointed as such under 3% quota meant for disabled persons on contract basis on 03.08.2013. His services were regularized 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 on 08.05.2017. In view of law laid down in Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.2 and Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3, the petitioner is entitled to be regularised right from the date of his initial appointment on contract basis. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Nitin Kumar2 and Umesh Jaswal3 by passing an appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh 2 CWPOA No.1077/2019, decided on 22.08.2022 3 CWP No.5090 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 19.12.2022