2025:HHC:4277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.12071 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hemant Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Grant-in- Aid in favour of the present petitioner at par with the similarly situated persons with all consequential benefits and take a decision in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2690/2019 titled as Raj Singh and Anr Vs State of HP, Annexure P-7 and consideration order dated 08.11.2023 Annexure P-8 after quashing the impugned compliance order of rejection Annexure P-4.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while making copy of judgment dated 21.07.2022, passed in CWP No.4876 of 2022, titled Jai Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, 2025:HHC:4277 2 available to this Court, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents for consideration of his case in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that representation, if any filed by the petitioner, shall be decided in terms of aforesaid judgment, if applicable. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Jai Prakash (supra) and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Jai 2025:HHC:4277 3 Prakash (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge