IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10711 of 2023 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ankaj Kumar & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. 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 relief:- “ (a) That the impugned action/inaction of the respondent is highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the Right of Equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India’ (b) That the act of the respondents as such is not reasonable, fair, just and transparent and as such, the action of giving discriminatory treatment to the petitioners is arbitrary, fanciful or unjust; (c) That the petitioner has been arbitrary chosen for discriminatory treatment and same is of legal mala-fide. There is gross violation of mandate enshrined in part-III of the Constitution of India. There is utter violation of service jurisprudence, in this circumstance the petitioner craves indulgence to provide in justice.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioners, but before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while referring to judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5267 of 2023, titled Uttam Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already 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 and decide the case of the petitioners in light of afore judgment, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 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 petitioners in light of judgment supra. 3 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 petitioners in light judgment (supra) 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 petitioners and pass appropriate order and in case, petitioners are found similarly situate to the petitioners in afore judgment, they shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 25, 2025 (shankar)