2026:HHC:10894 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16506 of 2025 Decided on: 08.04.2026 Parveen Kumar …….Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. : Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Reply to the petition not filed despite reasonable opportunities having been granted for the same. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 6570 of 2024, titled as Pawan Kumar vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 24.02.2026 and has submitted that the prayers made in this petition are squarely covered by the abovesaid judgment. Though, this fact is not disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents, however, they submitted that the order that may be passed by the Court, may not prejudice the legal rights of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10894 respondents to assail the same, if required. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “a). Impugned rejection order Annexure P-1 may please be quashed and set aside, and the petition may please be allowed. b. The petitioner may please be regularised from the and the period rendered in service on contract, dates of his initial appointment, i.e. 25/11/2008 followed by regular service, may please be counted towards the length of his services for all consequential benefits. C. All the consequential benefits viz., grant of the period, with effect from 2008 till the date of regular pay scale, and pay for the contractual regularisation. d. Correction of revision of pay band in 2008 and 2016 and considering the contractual period of service of the petitioner for determining the pension in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWPOA No. 513/2019 titled Babu Ram & Ors. Vs State of HP & Ors.; may please be awarded/granted approved in favour of the petitioner.” 4. As it is not in dispute that the reliefs prayed for in the petition are squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court 3 2026:HHC:10894 in CWP No. 6570 of 2024, titled as Pawan Kumar vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 24.02.2026, this petition is allowed by quashing impugned order Annexure P-1, dated 17.03.2025, by holding 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 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, already granted to other incumbents and the promotions be conferred upon the petitioner by creating superannuary post(s), so that other incumbents are not disturbed. 10. With these observations the petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 08, 2026 (narender)