( 2026:HHC:26314 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6250 of 2026 Date of Decision: 30.06.2026 Sikandar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : M/s. Ashwani Gupta & Babita, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Vivek Singh Thakur,Judge (oral) Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) The notification dated 3.1.2022 (Revision of pay scales) to the extent that it makes distinction between the regular and contractual employees in the matter of pay may kindly be held to be bad in the eyes of law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and office memorandum dated 12.1.2022 may also be read down/quashed since it makes distinction between the similarly situated employees; (ii) That the respondents may be ordered to pay revised emoluments at the rate of Rs.10800/- per month to the petitioner and other w.e.f. the dates they were brought on contractual establishment till their services were regularized with all the benefits incidental thereof; and (iii) That Annexure P-3 may also be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to pay revised contractual emoluments to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.10800/- per month from the date he was inducted as Pump Attendent on contractual basis till his services were regularized with all the benefits incidental thereof." ____________ ( 2026:HHC:26314 ) 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that in similar case CWP No. 9365 of 2025, titled Lakhveer Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, directions was issued by learned Single Bench of this High Court, vide order dated 05.06.2025 to the respondent- Department to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of order dated 17.08.2023 claimed to be passed in the case of similarly situated person, and in sequal to the said order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Bench of this High Court, respondents- State have extended the benefits to Lakhveer Singh also by issuing Office Order dated 18.04.2026, operative portion whereof is as under:- " And whereas it is brought to knowledge of undersigned that similar situated persons have been granted benefits of induction as pump attendant from retrospective date under Dehra division when approval was conveyed to induct workers vide government letter dated 03-08-2022 in case of persons having no education qualification. As the similar situated persons stand granted this benefit aftermath government decision dated 03-08-2022, their date of contractual appointment as well as regularization was changed as per similar situated qualified persons. The present petitioner was initially granted induction as Pump Attendant from prospective date on competition of 12 years service vide order 18473-79 dated 31.3.2021 also required to be given benefit of contractual appointment/ regularization from retrospective date. And accordingly the benefit has already been granted vide this office order No 952-57 dated 15.05.2024 to the petitioner as pump attendant on contract basis from 02-11-2020 when on approval from government similar situated qualified persons were given contract appointment and on regular basis from 10.05.2023. Now therefore the undersigned after taking into consideration order dated 17.08.223 issued by the Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division Nalagarh has come to the conclusion that the petitioner being similar situated to said order dated 17-08-2023, he will also be on titled to actual benefit of contractual amount as extended to the person in the order dated 17-08-2023 i.e from the period of contractual appointment ie 02.11.2020. Therefore in view of above discussion in para supra the case of the petitioner has been considered and decided in aforesaid terms as ____________ ( 2026:HHC:26314 ) per direction passed by the Hon'ble High court in CWP No. 9365 of 2025 and disposed off accordingly." 3. With aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if his case is also directed to be considered in the light of order dated 17.08.2023, issued by Executive Engineer JSV Division Nalagarh District Solan referred to in order dated 05.06.2025, passed in CWP No. 9365 of 2025, titled Lakhveer Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., as well as Office Order dated 18.04.2026 passed by the respondent Department extending the same benefits to Lakhveer Singh, to whom the petitioner is similarly situated. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the case of the petitioner shall be considered on its own merits and, after verifying the factual matrix, an appropriate order shall be passed within the time granted by the Court. 5. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits of rival contentions of parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Department to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of order dated 05.06.2025 passed in CWP No. 9365 of 2025, titled Lakhveer Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and order dated 17.08.2023 referred therein as well as Office Order dated 18.04.2026 issued by Executive Engineer Jal Shakti Division Dehra, placed on record in the present petition along with the application, i.e. CMP No. 15057 of 2026, by affording an opportunity of hearing, if so ____________ ( 2026:HHC:26314 ) desired and by passing a reasoned and speaking order, without discrimination, on or before 31.08.2026. Needless to say, in case of any surviving grievance, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy for redressal thereof. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Vivek Singh Thakur) (Judge) (Ranjan Sharma) (Judge) 30th June, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez) ____________