IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5345 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ram Pyari & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Rajta & Ms. Tara Devi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned Office Memorandum dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) being illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to benefits of pay revision to the petitioner wef 01.01.2016 alongwith arrears of pay and pensionary benefits, DCRG, commutation, Leave Encashment alongwith interest thereon @ 9% pa with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intents. (iii) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the respondents/competent authority in terms of judgment dated 17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, case titled as Nek Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners. 3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case, respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, 2 while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3