( 2026:HHC:30649 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6574 of 2024.. Decided on : 23 rd July , 2026. Kishori Lal ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate with Mr. Bhanu Verma, and Mr Ritik Prashar, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1,2, 4 and 5. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia prayed for following reliefs:- “a. The petitioner may please be regularized from the dates of his initial appointment i.e. 24/11/2008 and the period rendered in service on contract followed by regular may please be counted towards the length of his service for all consequential benefits. b. All the consequential benefits viz., grant of the regular pay scale and pay for the contractual period, with effect from 2008 till the date of regularization. c. Correction of revision of pay band in 2008 and 2016 and considering the contractual period of service of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:30649 ) for determining the pension in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of HP in Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Which stands upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) NO. 10399 of 2020 decided on 07/08/2023, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Sheela Devi & Ors. may please be awarded/granted/approved in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief prayed for by the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 6603 of 2024, titled Anil Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21st November, 2025, relevant paragraph whereof reads as under:- “Consequently, in view of discussions made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to take into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization for the purpose of continuity of service, meaning thereby, petitioner shall be deemed to be in regular service from the date of his initial appointment, but he shall not be entitled to actual benefits for the aforesaid period, till his regularization, rather service for the afore period shall only be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority as well as retiral benefits. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 3 ( 2026:HHC:30649 ) 3. He submitted that on the basis of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar’s case (supra), another person similarly situated as the petitioner has been granted relief in CWP No. 6570 of 2024 titled Pawan Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 22nd February 2024. The relevant paragraph No.9 there of reads as under:- “9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis before his regularization be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority as also pay fixation etc., but the same shall be notional, as till the date of filing of the petition and as from the date of filing of the petition, actual benefits be conferred upon the petitioner. If, on the strength of the seniority that has been granted to the petitioner by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for any promotions etc., then the said promotions shall not unsettle the promotions, if any, granted to other incumbents and the promotions be conferred upon the petitioner by creating superannuary post(s), so that other incumbents are not disturbed.” 4. He submits that in the interest of justice, this petition be disposed of with the direction that the findings returned in Anil Kumar versus State of H.P. and others (supra) are held to be mutatis mutandis applicable to the present petition. 4 ( 2026:HHC:30649 ) 5. Though the learned Deputy Advocate General tried to distinguish the judgments, but he could not demonstrate that Anil Kumar and Pawan Kumar (supra) were not similarly situated as the petitioner. 6. Therefore, as the issue involved in this petition is no more res integra and the same stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6603 of 2024, titled Anil Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 21st November, 2025, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the findings returned by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in Anil Kumar versus State of H.P. and others (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present petition also. Relief granted to the petitioner therein shall be construed to have been granted to the present petitioner also. The petition stands disposed of. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 23rd July, 2026. (jai)