IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8253 of 2023 Date of Decision: 18.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Hem Raj and Ors. …….Petitioners Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners being TGT (Arts) for all intents and purposes in light of the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court vide dated 04.09.2023 passed in CWP No. 2171/2023, titled as Hem Raj & connected matters (Annexure P-11), since the respondent department has already treated one set of C&Vs (Hindi & Sanskrit) as TGTs and in view of the above mentioned judgment of Hem Raj, the said set of TGTs have been given all benefits qua the post of TGT (Arts). 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to grant the pay scale of TGT (Arts) to the petitioners in view of the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court vide dated 04.09.2023 passed in CWP No. 2171/2023, titled as Hem Raj & connected matters (Annexure P-11) iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners TGTs for promotion to the post of Lecturer (School New) & Head master.” 2. Though by way of filing reply, claim put forth by the peti- tioners has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to judgment dated 4.9.2023, passed in CWP No. 2171 of 2023, titled Hem Raj & Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh alongwith connected matters, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings stands adjudicated in the afore judgment and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider their case in light of afore judgment. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the learned counsel for the peti- tioners 4. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the 3 aforesaid judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petition- ers in light of the aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of Hem Raj (supra), expeditiously, pre- ferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority con- cerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall af- ford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon taking note of the observations made herein above as well as findings returned in the afore judgment. Pending applica- tion(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 18, 2025 manjit