IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17898 of 2026 Decided on: 7th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radhe Shyam …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mehar Chand Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to convert the services of the petitioner to Government 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 contract post completion of three years of service with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the regular pay scale to the petitioner as similar persons granted the said benefit as per notification dated 28.03.2016 (Annexure P-7).” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only for grant of relief No.(ii) and the petitioner be permitted to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of the grievances in relation to relief No.(i) at an appropriate stage. Prayer is accepted. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage qua relief No.(ii). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner and the grievance raised by him has already been adjudicated upon in Arvind Pal & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition and the said authority is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. Learned 2 CWP No.8208 of 2025, decided on 20.07.2026 3 counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to represent to respondent No.2/competent authority seeking redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition. In case such a representation is so made within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 07, 2026 Judge Mukesh