IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12253 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Chandra Devi …….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. Tek Chand Sharma, Mr. K.C. Sankhyan and Mr. Nishant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as a Class-IV with all its consequential benefits from the due date on attaining of eligibility. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to issue regularization order in a time bound manner, as per policy prevailing on attaining and fulfilling eligibility criteria during 2022-23 with all its consequential benefits.” 2. Though despite repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.3189 of 2025, titled as Sh. Balbir Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Parkash, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents, fairly state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. 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 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 petitioner in light of judgment supra. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon and in case petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in Balbir Singh’s case (supra), then he be also granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file 3 appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)