IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4797 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ganesh Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and offer appointment to the petitioner on batch wise basis for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist from the same date, when the persons junior to the petitioner on batch wise basis were offered appointment in the interest of law and justice with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc; (ii) That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.7724 of 2021 decided on 15.09.2022, titled as Dev Raj and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and further directed to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 give same treatment to the petitioners as has given in the above mentioned case, in the interest of law and justice.” 2. Before the reply could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7724 of 2021, titled Dev Raj and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks, praying therein for consideration of his case in terms of judgment passed in Dev Raj case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 02,2025 (shankar)