2025:HHC:486 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3630 of 2020 Decided on: 3rd January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dharmu and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.22 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.3630 of 2020 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to pay the arrears to the petitioners, as per the judgment rendered in Rakesh Kumar’s case, even if the petitioners did not approach the Court of law, since the petitioners also deserve the same treatment as has been given to the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:486 other similarly situated persons who have been paid arrears. ii. That the impugned portion of Annexure P-2 may be read down/set aside.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar issue as has been raised by the petitioners in the instant writ petition came up for consideration in Bhindro Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment within a time bound schedule and in case the petitioners are found to be similarly situated as the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, then the benefit as given to the petitioners in that case be also conferred upon the petitioners in the present case. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to considering the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decision. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid decision in the case of Bhindro2, 2 CWP No.3578 of 2022, decided alongwith connected matters on 16.12.2022 3 2025:HHC:486 within a period of six weeks from today. In case the petitioners are similarly situated employees, then the benefits as released to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition, be released to them within a further period of twelve weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh