IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1059 of 2020 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 __________________________________________________________ Bali Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, 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, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.8321 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.1059 of 2020 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the averments made in the present petition the present petition may kindly be allowed & respondents may please directed to grant / release the pay scale of Rs 37000-67000+9000(AGP) to the petitioners after a period of 3 years from the grant of Senior Selection Grade , as has been done in the cases of Sh Sant Ram Chauhan & Sh Laig Ram Chauhan while 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 doing their fixations with the further prayer to release the arrears of the same to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment, for which he is legally & validly entitled, as has been granted to other similarly situated persons & in the interest of justice That the respondents may also be directed to produce the entire & complete records including the day to day noting sheets in the case of petitioner as also in the case of Sh Sant Ram & Sh Laiq Ram Chauhan & various other persons to show unto this Hon'ble Court that how best the honest & sincere employees of the departments can be harassed.” 3. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7526 of 2021, titled Laiq Ram Sharma and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 17.10.2023, along with connected matters, which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.356 of 2024, titled State of H.P. and Another Vs. Kartar Chand, decided on 09.01.2025, and further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8418-8420 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Laiq Ram Sharma and Others, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore cases. He states that 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 judgments, in a time bound manner. 3 4. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Laiq Ram Sharma case (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties, in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. Moreover, this Court has also been apprised that in similar cases, undertaking has already been filed by the respondents for implementation of the same. 6. 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 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgments, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner 4 to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)