2025:HHC:10190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15561 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shiv Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Tara Devi & Mr. Durga Bahadur, Advocates, vice Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned Office Memorandum dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) being illegal and unconstitutional; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to benefits of pay revision to the petitioner w.e.f 01.01.2016 alongwith arrears of pay and pensionary benefits, DCRG, commutation, Leave Encashment alongwith interest thereon @ 9% pa with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intents.” 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3050 of 2014 titled as Nek Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Nek Ram (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Nek Ram (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he 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. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2