IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15847 of 2026 Decided on: 22nd September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rameshwar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order was passed in this matter on 14.09.2026:- “Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Assistant Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. On account of delay on part of respondents in completing the codal formalities, the regularization of the petitioners had been delayed than their counterparts. Somewhat similar factual position arose in CWP No. 8839 of 2023 (Pushp Kumar and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others). The said writ petition was decided on 07.11.2024 as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 10. In fact, a perusal of communication dated, 31.01.2022, Annexure P-5, which has been issued by the Conservator of Forest, Solan, H.P., demonstrates that incumbents mentioned therein, which include some of the petitioners had completed two years of contract service as far back as in the month of August, 2021. It is not in dispute that in fact all the petitioners had completed two years service on contract basis as in the month of August, 2021. 11. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to order the regularization of the petitioners with effect from 31.12.2021, i.e. the date when their counterparts in Dharamshala Circle were regularized, with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Notification dated 03.01.2022 (Annexure P-4) and Notification dated 06.09.2022 (Annexure P-6). CWP No. 3977 of 2025, filed by the petitioners seeking applicability of Pushp Kumar and also Mohit Sharma was disposed of on 01.05.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgments within timeline indicated therein. Respondents passed consideration order on 31.07.2025 granting the benefit of Mohit Sharma to the petitioners, but the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioners vis-a-vis Pushp Kumar. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have instituted the present petition. Let learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions as to why the benefit of Pushp Kumar is not being extended to the petitioners. In case the case of the petitioners is covered by Pushp Kumar and there is no interim order against Pushp Kumar, benefits as made applicable to Pushp Kumar be also extended to the petitioners by the next date. Instructions along with fresh consideration order be produced on the next date of hearing. List on 22.09.2026.” 3 2. Pursuant to above order, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 21.09.2026 from the Superintending Engineer, Jal Shakti Circle, Shimla, inter alia, conveying that the case of petitioner No.1 has been reconsidered in light of judgment passed in Pushap Kumar’s case and a fresh consideration order has been passed on 18.09.2026. Copy of the consideration order has also been appended alongwith the office instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid office instructions and consideration order dated 18.09.2026 have redressed the grievance of petitioner No.1 raised in this writ petition. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that fresh consideration order shall be passed in case of petitioner No.2 as well within a period of one week. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of petitioner No.2 by passing a fresh consideration order in accordance with law within a period of one week, i.e. by or before 30.09.2026. Copy of the order so passed, be also supplied to petitioner No.2. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 22, 2026 Judge Mukesh