IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11395 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nitin Chauhan & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent to extend the benefit of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lekh Ram’s case and in CWP No. 7556 of 2022, titled Rahul Attri and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 titled Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and the latest judgment passed in CWP No. 8302/2021 relining upon the abovementioned judgments in favour of the petitioners; 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (b) That respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioners on regular basis right from their initial appointment as per the compassionate policy of 1990; (c) That respondent may kindly be directed to extend the all benefit such as seniority, increments, promotion and other consequential benefits by considering the petitioner as deem to be regularized form the date of their initial appointment i.e. from 2008; (d) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the due date with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of realization.” 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8032 of 2021, titled Vikas Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of afore judgment , in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 3 petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks in light of Vikas Kumar’s case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (shankar)