IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20335 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kamlesh Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Bansal and Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the impugned office order dated 04.12.2025 i.e. Annexure P-8 passed by the respondent No.2 in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, admissible under rule 43 (1) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, to the petitioner after being bless with her third biological child born on 27.09.2025 her second marriage.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 14234 of 2025 titled - 2 - Anuradha Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench this Court in Anuradha Sharma (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, especially the relief clause vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings stands already adjudicated in Anuradha Sharma (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. 5. 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 case of the petitioner in light of Anuradha Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered - 3 - accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge