Pitamber Pushp vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to continue with and regularize the contractual services of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Horticulture (i.e. Respondent no.1 to 3) after completion of Two years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 12.12.2020 on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in terms of regularization policy of the Respondent State, with all consequential benefits.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to condone the break in Petitioner’s contractual service on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 05.04.2024 till his joining back, regularization towards continuity in service for all intents and purposes and re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner alongwith 12% interest.

iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner rom the initial date of his appointment or after c mpletion of Two years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in India with all consequential benefits.”

Learned co nsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petiti ner, issue raised by petitioner and reliefs claimed herein have already been adjudicated in Nitin Thakur Versus State of H.P. and others[CWP No.4971 of 2024, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.09.2025], which was disposed of with following operative directions:-

“89. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners on the post they were offered engagement in the Department of Horticulture after completion of two years contractual service in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.”

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Nitin Thakur2 by passing approp iate o der within a period of six weeks from today. Copy of the order so passed, be also communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.