2025:HHC:5383 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3241 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Daljit Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to count the entire contractual service rendered by petitioner towards seniority, increment and other service benefits along with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to extend same and similar benefits to the petitioner as has been extended to the similarly situated persons in light of judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No. 629/2018 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWPOA No. 1745 of 2020 titled Chaman Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with interest @ 12 per annum. (iii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within time bound manner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. March 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2