IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4119 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dharam Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “I. That an appropriate order or direction may kindly be issued, thereby, directing the respondents to count the entire past services of the petitioner rendered on contract basis as Lect. Economics w.e.f. their initial date of appointment i.e. 08.10.1998 to till regularization for the purpose of annual increments, pension and other consequential benefits in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court, vide judgment dated 10.01.2020 in CWP No. 2411 /2019 and connected matters, titled as Jagdish Chand & Ors. Vs. the State of H.P. and Ors. (Annexure P-6), which stands implemented vide order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-7).” - 2 - 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as “Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors” (alongwith connected matters), decided on 10.1.2020 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 5.7.2024 (Annexure P-8) having been filed the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Jagdish Chand (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing - 3 - direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. March 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge