IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13451 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8148 of 2022, titled Yashwant Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. 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 Co-ordinate Bench of this 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 petitioners in light of judgment supra. 4. 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Yashwant Kumar (supra). 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 13, 2025 (shankar)