IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4617 of 2022 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Dinesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. 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. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.39 of 2022, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Piyar Chand, decided on 28.04.2022, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore case. She states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 petitioner in light of Piyar Chand case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove and in case petitioner is found similar situate to the petitioner in afore case, then he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file 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 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)