IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2785 of 2020 Date of Decision: 21.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harbansh Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner No.1 as Lecturer English at Government Senior Secondary School Chandesh, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., petitioner No.2 as Lecturer Political Science at Government Senior Secondary School Nabahi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner No.3 as Lecturer Hindi at Government Senior Secondary School Chandesh Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and petitioner No.4 as Lecturer Commerce at Government Senior Secondary School Dev Brarta, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh or any other schools where the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 posts are lying vacant within a time bound period with all consequential benefits.” 2. Though, by way of reply to the petition, claim put forth by the petitioners has been refuted by the respondents, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while referring to judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3242 of 2020, titled Antim Mahajan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in 3 case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. 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 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Antim Mahajan case (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and in case, petitioners are found similarly situate to the petitioners in afore judgment, they shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 21,2025 (shankar)