IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1891 of 2017 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Parkash Chand and Another …….Petitioners Versus Union of India and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.8319 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.1891 of 2017 2. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 20.01.2017 Annexure P-7 whereby the claim of the petitioner for granting him the benefits of daily wage as well as contract services has been rejected by the respondent, may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the services rendered by the petitioners as casual workers from July, 1985 to October, 1990 and on contract basis from 28.09.2010 till regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.08.2004, may very kindly be counted towards length of service for the purpose of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 seniority, promotion and pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits.” 3. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioners, has been refuted, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in case titled as titled Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWPOA No.195 of 2019, decided on 26.12.2019, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Sheela Devi case (surpa), in a time bound manner. 4. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Sheela Devi case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass 3 detailed speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)