2025:HHC:8331-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5683 of 2021 Date of Decision: 28.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yash Paul ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order/letter dated 17.07.2021 (Annexure P-4), since the same has been issued in gross and palpable violation of the judgments delivered by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and also notifications issued by the State Government from time to time. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to count the ad-hoc services of the petitioner which he rendered in the respondent department as Junior Basic Teacher followed by regularisation and to grant him due service benefits such as; pay fixation, increments, arrears of salary alongwith interest as well as all consequential benefits, as have been granted to the other similar situated persons, in view of the judgments delivered by this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court and also notifications issued by the State Government from time to time.” 2. Though pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent/State has filed reply, but before claim of the petitioner could be considered and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 242 of 2019 titled Sarita Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. 3. Having carefully 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 issued raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sarita Sharma (supra) and no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed herein above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the 2 needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3