IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.3697 of 2024 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Mayank Verma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma, Mr. Anshul Gandhi and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, titled Sant Ram and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others. 2. Before passing further orders, it is apt to take note of Para No.21 of the reply filed by the respondents, whereby respondents have categorically admitted in their reply that case of the petitioner is similar to Sant Ram (supra), but at the time of filing of the reply, judgment in Sant Ram (supra) was under challenge before the Hon’ble 2 Supreme Court by way of SLP. It is not in dispute that SLP filed by the respondents/State against judgment dated 07.10.2023, passed in LPA No.153 of 2023, titled State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sant Ram and Another, laying therein challenge to judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.3562 of 2019, stands dismissed vide judgment dated 06.02.2025, if it is so, case of the petitioner, being similarly situate to that of Sant Ram’s case (supra), is also required to be allowed in terms of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in afore case, especially when respondents have themselves admitted that petitioner’s case is similarly situate to Sant Ram (supra), and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court. 3. Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court in Sant Ram (supra) are made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes and respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator after completion of six years of contractual service w.e.f. 06.01.2016, with all consequential benefits. However, actual monetary benefits shall be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. 3 In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any May 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge