IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17590 of 2026 alongwith CWP No.17591 of 2026 Decided on: 7th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.17590 of 2026 Hem Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.17591 of 2026 Rajeev Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners were appointed on contract basis on compassionate grounds in the respondent-Education 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Department under the Kith and Kin Policy. CWP No. 10756 of 2026 (Hem Raj Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) and CWP No. 10755 of 2026 (Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) were filed seeking regular employment from the date of their contractual appointment. Both the petitions were disposed of on 08.07.2026 with directions to the respondents to consider the respective representations preferred by the petitioners in accordance with law and, in particular, in terms of Vikas Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. The respondents have turned down their representations under separate speaking orders (Annexure P-6 in both the writ petitions) primarily on the ground that Vikas Kumar2 had been stayed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.194 of 2026 (State of H.P. and another vs. Vikas Kumar). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case petitioners are permitted to file fresh representation(s) seeking applicability Vikas Kumar2 in their cases after adjudication of LPA No.194 of 2026. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 2 CWP No.8032 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.06.2025 3 3. In view of above and notwithstanding impugned orders (Annexure P-6), these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation(s) of the petitioners in accordance with law by passing a fresh speaking orders within six weeks after adjudication of LPA No.194 of 2026 and in terms thereof. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 07, 2026 Judge rohit