IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15147 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Bahadur Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that her client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P, 1994(2) Supp. SCC 316. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 2 2. 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 Hon'ble Apex 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. 3. 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 six weeks from today. 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 remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge