IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.594 of 2026 Decided on: 07.01.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nardev Singh Jandrotia and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Taking into consideration the pleadings, the order impugned herein and the order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called for. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Petitioners seek direction to the respondents to correct their seniority placements in view of retrospective regularization of their services. The case set up by the petitioners is that they were appointed as Teachers against Short Term/Leave Vacancy on contractual basis during the years 1998 and 1999. Their services were regularized during the year 2008. Thereafter, all the petitioners were assigned seniority in terms of their regularization order in light of Arpana Bali vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the case of the petitioners and passed speaking orders on 07.01.2022 & 15.03.2022, regularizing the services of the petitioners from retrospective date. All the petitioners were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2008. Petitioners’ grievance is that despite retrospective regularization of their services, their seniority positions have not been revised. That they have been assigned seniority as per their old date of regularization of services. 2 CWP No.1853 of 2009, decided on 10.04.2013 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the representations submitted by the petitioners to the respondents on 02.04.2022 & 09.11.2025 (Annexure P- 7 Colly.), no concrete action has been taken by the respondents for redressing their grievances. 5. In view of the limited grievance of the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to represent to the respondents within two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents/competent authority in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made above, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 07,2026 Judge rohit