IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8156 of 2024 alongwith CWP No.8158 of 2024 Decided on: 13th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.8156 of 2024 Chaman Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.8158 of 2024 Susheel Sammi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP No.8156 of 2024 reads as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “A. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant benefit of earned leave to the petitioner from the due date of regularization, in view of the fact that the delay in regularization of service of the petitioner is clear cut fault on the part of the respondent department and for the fault of the respondent department, the petitioner cannot be deprived from getting the benefit of earned leave.” 3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sunita Sangroli Versus State of H.P. and Ors.2. Learned vice counsel also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-2, for claiming the above relief are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 2 CWP No.5043 of 2022, decided on 08.08.2023 3 respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Sunita Sangroli2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh