2025:HHC:7071 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3963 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pratap Singh Sidholi ……...Petitioner Versus HPSEBL …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of counting of contract service followed by regular service for seniority annual increments and pensionery benefits under CCS Rules (Pension) rules 1972 with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to give all the consequential benefit to the petitioners during the pendency of the present writ petition and decide annexure P-5.” 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. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, 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 eight 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 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2