IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13003 of 2024 Date of Decision:05.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Partap Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anita Devi, 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: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus of any other appropriate writ order of direction may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to count the period of approved military service towards fixation of pay in favour of the petitioner from the date of his joining civil employment; (ii) That the respondents may be directed to release all consequential benefits such as arrears etc. in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.; (iii) That the impunged office order dated 23.01.2020 contained in Annexure P-11 and all subsequently rejection orders may kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the case at hand is heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 01.12.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3126 of 20221, titled Mukesh Thakur and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by Co-ordinate 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 cases of the petitioner in light of the judgment(supra) expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he 3 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 order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 05, 2025 (shankar)