2025:HHC:13020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7231 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar & Anr. ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant seniority to the petitioners from the year 2014 and to pay all actual monetary benefits alongwith interest to the petitioners w.e.f. 2015 and January, 2017 till date including yearly increment, pay arrears and higher pay scale i.e. Rs. 41000/- or Rs. 42300/- in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 6854/2023, titled as Rajo Devi v/s State of H.P. & others, decided on 16.10.2023 (Annexure P-2), since the same has been given to the similarly situated persons i.e. Rajo Devi, Yash Pal and Neeta Ram, because the petitioners and above named persons were given appointment from the same selection process.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 6854 of 2023 titled Rajo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Rajo Devi (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in light of Rajo Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 2 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3