IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7053 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manohar Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 13.12.2012, passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 105 of 2010, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Rakesh Chand and Ors. (alongwith connected matters) and judgment dated 23.7.2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 7530 of 2020, titled Nisha Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 2 2. Having perused aforesaid judgments 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 judgments 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 judgments. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner in light of Rakesh Chand and Nisha Devi (supra) expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge