IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8642 of 2025 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Rakesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Bonit Parkash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.  L.N.  Sharma,  Additional   Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks benefits of the decision rendered in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others.2 2. Learned   Additional   Advocate   General   submits that the judgment in Satya Devi’s2 case has been assailed by the respondents by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20496/2024. The common decision passed in several other matters   connected   with   Satya   Devi’s   case   has   also   been assailed by the respondents  by filing separate Special Leave Petitions including State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No. 2274 of 2021 and connected matters. decided on 28.05.2024 2 Inder Pal3. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court   on   24.03.2025   in   several   connected   Special   Leave Petitions with lead case State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal3 was perused which reads as under:­ “1. Delay condoned. 2. Let the notice be issued to the respondent(s) in all the matters. 3. Tag alongwith SLP© No. 20496/2024. 4. In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s) is/are stayed.” In   view   of   the   fact   that   operation   of   impugned order(s)  (common  judgment  rendered on 28.05.2024)  in all connected   Special   Leave   Petition   has   been   stayed   by   the Hon’ble   Apex   Court,   this   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   with direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s2  case, shall abide by the outcome of the  Inder Pal’s3 case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment   rendered   in Satya   Devi’s2 case.   Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 22, 2025 Judge rohit 3Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306/2025