IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14221 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manish Chaudhary …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. M.A.Safee, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents/State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to finalize the seniority list of the Inspector of Police and assign the petitioner the seniority strictly as per the mandate of the order dated 08.06.2022 passed in compliance of judgment dated 31.08.2020 passed in CWPOA No.5318 of 2020, titled Manish Chaudhary vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents that after finalizing the seniority list of the Inspector of Police, as per the relief(i) 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 claimed hereinabove, the respondents be directed to correct the position of the petitioner in the Civil List and he be placed at Sr. No.111 in the Civil List of Himachal Pradesh Cadre or in alternate the respondents be directed to convene the Review DPC for Himachal Pradesh Police Service as convened in the year 2007 and the petitioner be order to be promoted as Dy.S.P. w.e.f.2017 with all consequential benefits.” 2. Though, vide order dated 04.09.2025, this Court had granted time to the respondents to file reply, but learned Additional Advocate General instead of filing reply has made available communication dated 10.10.2025, issued under the signatures of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to state that as per the direction issued by this Court in CWPOA No.5318 of 2020, the seniority of Sh. Manish Chaudhary i.e. petitioner was fixed w.e.f.10.02.2012 vide office order dated 08.06.2022 and he was placed below Sub Inspector Karnail Singh of 1st Bn. Junga, lien holder of Southern Range, Shimla at Sr. No.21 of the list issued on 12.10.2011. As per aforesaid communication, now the seniority of the petitioner has been re-fixed vide office order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure R-2/1) annexed with the aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, and the petitioner has been placed in the seniority list issued during the years, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 as per his 3 seniority. As per re-fixed seniority, the case of the petitioner has now been sent to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for consideration for promotion to the higher rank. Learned Additional Advocate General states that now since seniority of the petitioner has been re-fixed and matter is pending consideration before the Government for promotion to the higher rank, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and same may be disposed of. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that present petition can be disposed of on account of grant of aforesaid benefit, but with a direction to the respondents to do the needful in a time bound manner. 4. It is apparent from aforesaid communication that seniority of petitioner in the cadre of Inspector now stands corrected, but his seniority in the rank of Dy.S.P., is yet to be rectified, as has been stated in the aforesaid communication, but since necessary decision in that regard can only be taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to do the needful expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in 4 appropriate Court of law qua the afore relief, if needful is not done, as is otherwise undertaken to be done by the respondents vide communication dated 10.10.2025. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 13, 2025 (shankar)