IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8991 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Devender Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari by modifying the notification dated 06.07.02022 i.e. Annexure P-4 with the direction to the respondents that 4% promotional quota for disabled person may kindly be provided from the date i.e. 30.06.2016 as he has been provided by the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide its notification dated 27-08-2024 as well as the Government of India vide its notification dated 28.12.2023, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e. Rajeev Kumar Gupta’s case, decided on 30.06.2016. (ii) That in alternative the respondents department may kindly be directed to consider the representation dated 23-03- 2025 made by the petitioner to the respondents i.e. Annexure P- 08 in time bound manner. (ii) That respondents department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for further promotion i.e. Assistant Director (Archives) from the back date as and when 2 the petitioner was fully eligible for further promotion and grant of consequential benefits, accidental thereof.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is ordered to be decided in a time bound manner in terms of judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 titled as Sidha Raju Vs. State of Karnataka, which has been otherwise implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh by issuing notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-9), whereby all Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh have been apprised with regard to decision of Government of Himachal Pradesh to provide reservation in promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDS) in the services of State Government. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, coupled with the fact that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sidha Raju’s case (supra), there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondent, which is otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that issue of reservation in promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in the services of State Government has already been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidha Raju’s case and after receipt of aforesaid judgment, State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 27.08.2024 has already decided to provide reservation in promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in State Government, if it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, who admittedly falls in the category of Person with Benchmark Disabilities, in a time bound manner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, as detailed hereinabove, as well as notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-7), 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge