IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10311 of 2024 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Desh Raj …….Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya ….Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “A. That the impugned annexures P- 10, P-11 & P-12, may please be quashed & set aside being illegal, arbitrary & unconstitutional, as also being wrong, unjust & unfair to the poor petitioner, who in spite of being selected & appointed against the vacant post of driver reserved for ex-servicemen & even after getting the regular pay scale from the first day of his appointment in addition to being paid annual increments, ACP benefit of 4-9-14, earned leave, commuted leave half pay leave & the DCRG benefit after his retirement has been divested of his entitlement for pension illegally, therefore respondent may please be directed to grant the pension to the petitioner from the due date along with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment to him strictly as per the notification issued by the Govt & adopted by the respondent university, within some time bound period. B. That the entire & complete record with respect to petitioner's case vis-à-vis various other similarly situated persons may also be summoned unto this Hon'ble Court for satisfying the judicial 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 conscience of this Hon'ble Court, to show & prove that how best a poor & sincere employee can be harassed.” 2. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 26.12.2019, CWP No.2384 of 2018, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh and Another, decided on 18.12.2018, CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi Vs. HPSEBL and Another, decided on 21.11.2014, CWP No.895 of 2013, titled as Hansa Rana and Another Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 01.03.2013 and LPA No.36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 15.07.2010, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore cases. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel representing the respondent, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondent, this Court without going into the 3 merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 detailed speaking order taking note of judgments, as detailed hereinabove and in case petitioner is found similar situate to the petitioner in afore cases, then he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)