2026:HHC:2648 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 705 of 2026 Date of decision : January 8, 2026 Asheesh Thakur ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State. Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for treating the appointment on regular basis instead of contract from the initial date of appointment with effect from 13.04.2021. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all emoluments as he is entitled at par with regular employee in the establishment of respondent department from the initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority, increment, arrears of pay, available to regular employees etc, with 18% interest per annum from the due date till actual date of payment to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post of JOA(IT) on contract basis vide order dated 13.4.2021. HIs services were regularized on 3.10.2023. It is contended that the petitioner is physically handicapped to the extent of 70%, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- reference in this regard has been made to certificate (Annexure P-4). In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner prays for application of decision dated 22.08.2022 rendered in CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019 (Nitin Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Anr.), for claiming the benefits of regularization from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment, being physically handicapped. 3. At this stage, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner for grant of reliefs prayed for by her in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that similar issue as raised in the present petition, has been adjudicated in the matter of Nitin Kumar (supra). He further submitted that, however, the facts of the instant case are required to be verified. 5. In view of above submissions, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of relief prayed for and verify the facts of the instant cases vis-à-vis the decision rendered in Nitin Kumar’s case (supra), within a period of six weeks from today. In case the petitioner is found to be situated similar, to the petitioner in the aforesaid cases, then same benefit, as has been given to the petitioner in Nitin Kumar’s case (supra), shall be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge January 8, 2026 (Vikrant)