IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15967 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ramita Mahajan and another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before the reply, if any, could be called upon from the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General had made available copy of office order dated 19th September, 2025 passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, to states that to ensure uniformity in respect of the implementations of the judgments passed by this Court specifically drawing analogies with the cases decided on the analogy of CWP No. 414 of 2014, titled as Kuldeep Chand vs. State and others alongwith LPA No.54 of 2013, titled State of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Himachal Pradesh vs. Om Prakash and all connected matters, it has been decided that the monetary benefits qua the petitioners will be restricted to three years immediately preceding the filing of the writ petitions in respect of the petitioners of the office orders dated 06.09.2024, 05.10.2024, 06.11.2024, 11.11.2024, 14.11.2024, 26.11.2024,12.12.2024, 08.01.2025 and 01.02.2025. Aforesaid office order further reveals that concerned Principal/Headmaster/In-charge of GSSS/GHS/GMS of Himachal Pradesh have been further directed to release the consequential benefits regarding monetary benefits qua the petitioners shall be as per the instructions issued by the Finance Department vide letter dated 07.01.2012 and 31.07.2024. 2. Having perused the aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General. After having perused aforesaid communication, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that relief otherwise prayed in the instant petition stands granted to the petitioners and as such, present petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to ensure the release of consequential benefits in a time bound manner. 3 3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to ensure that consequential benefits, if any, flowing from the order dated 19.09.2025 placed on record, if not already released, shall be released expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 10, 2025 (shankar)