Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 28 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4595 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 28.8.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Suresh Kumar
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
r Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for
following main reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in the facts and
circumstances enumerated herein above a writ of mandamus
may be issued, directing the respondents to count the contract
period i.e. 26-02-1992 to 01-04-1999 for the purpose of all
pensionary benefits and annual increments and revise all the
pensionary benefits/entitlements accordingly and pay
consequential benefits along with interest to the petitioner."
2. Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed by
3 & 5, whereas by way of filing reply, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 have
refuted the claim of the petitioner for regularization, but before case at
hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for
the petitioner invited attention of this Court to judgment dated
16.9.2023, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.
.
689 of 2019, titled as Dile Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and
another (along with connected matters), to state that issue sought to
be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by
this Court in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioner would be
content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents
3.
r to
to consider and decide his case in light of aforesaid judgment in a time
bound manner.
Having perused averments contained in the petition,
which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to
be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant
proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Dile Ram
(supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing
direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the
petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide
case of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove,
expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case,
petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the
aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless
to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the
instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand
.
disposed of.
August 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
r to
