IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3073 of 2025 Date of Decision: 8.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Kusum Lata and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief: “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to treat the petitioners as having been appointed in the year 2002 with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intends.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the judgment dated 10.5.2023, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6850 of 2020, Milat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., - 2 - states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having perused averments contained in the aforesaid judgment, especially relief, as prayed for, vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid case and as such, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the petitioners for filing representation to the department concerned for consideration of his case in light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within two weeks to the competent authority, praying therein for consideration of their case in light of Milat Ram (supra), which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within six - 3 - weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 8, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge