IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5677 of 2024 Date of Decision: 3.7.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kesar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rana and Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That respondent may kindly be directed to grant the promotional benefits from the date 05.10.2015 on which the Addendum was issued and justice be done. ii. That the respondents may be directed to provide the opportunity for exercising the option as per fundamental rules 22 to get the pay of the petitioner fixed of the promotional post after earning the increment of the lower scale post.” 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been hig- hlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. H.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment dated 17.5.2024, passed by coordi- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 nate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 5312 of 2020 titled as Devini Sharma and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another (Annex- ure P-5), but yet benefit in terms of afore case is not being released to the petitioner. To support aforesaid contention, Mr. Rana, invited at- tention of this court to reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, wherein in para-3 of the preliminary submissions, it has been admitted that case of the petitioner is similar to Devini Sharma (supra) and as and when same is approved by the competent authority, same shall be made applicable to the petitioner. 3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid reply filed by the respondents that petitioner’s case is similarly situate to case of Devini Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing di- rection to the respondents to consider and decide case of the peti- tioner in light of aforesaid judgment, expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks 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 speaking order thereupon and in case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 3, 2025 manjit