2026:HHC:10313 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8310 of 2024 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Raj Kumar & another … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering appointment to the petitioners on contract basis instead of giving regular appointment as per R & P Rule on vogue at the time of initiation of the recruitment process, may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional and in violation to the R & P Rule. B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the services of the petitioners on regular basis TEC along with all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the "Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973" since the date of their initial joining on contract basis as PGT/ Lecturer School Cadre in pursuant to the Advertisement Notice dated 28.08.2008 and advertisement notice dated-ED 17.02.2009 vide Annexure P/2 (Colly). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10313 C. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated May, 2017 vide Annexure P/1. D. That the respondents may kindly be release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their joining to till the date of realization. E. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in LPA No.54/2013 and LPA No.500/2013 and the petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No. 414/2014, 416/2014 and 417/2014 and in Civil Writ Petition No. 9135 of 2023 titled as Anil Kumar & Other versus state of Himachal Pradesh has been held entitled by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have wrongly rejected the cases of the petitioners under office order at Annexure P/1. That petitioners’ cases for regularization from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis were covered in terms of State of H.P. & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash2. Learned counsel further submitted that the reliefs claimed for by the petitioners were also claimed in Sukh Dev & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., which was disposed of on the analogy of decision rendered in Ajay Kumar Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.4, which has been implemented by the respondents-State under office order issued on 10.09.2025. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ cases for the reliefs 3 2026:HHC:10313 claimed, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter and notwithstanding with the order at Annexure P-1, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners afresh, in accordance with law, as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (Rishi)