IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13419 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Balak Ram Dhiman …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in H.P. Secretariat & Other Affiliated Pensioners Welfare Association Vs. State of H.P. and Others, passed in CWP No.7376 of 2023, decided on 22.03.2024, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. 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 August 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi) RAJEEV RATURI Digitally signed by RAJEEV RATURI Date: 2025.08.21 17:02:17 +0530