IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1783 of 2024 Date of Decision:10.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ramesh Chander Dhir …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surender Kumar, 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, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ a) Issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents directing them to bestow the benefit of third proficiency step up from it fell due with all consequential benefit on the basis of decision render in LPA No.259/2012 decided on 22nd September 2022; b) To direct the respondent to decide the representation of petitioner in time bound manner.” 2. Though, by way of reply respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the petitioner invited 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 attention of this Court to judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.259 of 2012, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Gian Chand and others as well as judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4644 of 2024, titled Vasu Dev Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case, case of the petitioner is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of aforesaid judgments. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court is of the view that issue otherwise sought to be decided already stands adjudicated in the afore cases and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall 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 judgments. 4. Consequently, in view of 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 judgments passed in Gian Chand and Vasu Dev Sharma’s cases(supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority 3 concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and in case, petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioners in afore judgments, he shall also be granted similar benefits. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 10, 2025 (shankar)