IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11199 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.8.2025 _______________________________________________________ Raja Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.D. Nanda, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization with effect from 23.11.1996, the date when his juniors have been regularized, with all consequential benefits. ii) The respondents may be directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner in a time bound manner. iii) The respondents may be directed to pay arrears on account of regularization from due date and arrears of pension and other retirement benefits from the date of retirement with interest @9% per annum till actual payment of the same.” 2. Though by way of filing reply to the petition, respondents have refuted the case of the petitioner, but learned counsel 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representing the petitioner while making this court peruse judgment dated 10.1.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 786 of 2017 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Tulpi Devi and Ors., (alongwith connected matters), states that his client would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment. 3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division 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 petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Tulpi Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking 3 order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 13, 2025 manjit