IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7801 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Aarti Gupta & others …….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. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “ (i) That an appropriate order of direction may be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioners appointee in the college on and effect from the date of taking over the college by the State Government i.e. 8.6.2016, with further directions to grant all the consequential benefits including balance of salary for the period 8.6.2016 to 21.8.2017 exactly as has been granted to the staff of Pt. Anant Ram Sanatan Dharam College, Badoh in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 further of judgment rendered in CWPOA No.2050 of 2020, dated 14th September, 2023 (Annexure P-7); (ii) That an appropriate order of direction may be issued and respondents may kindly be directed to count the contractual services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes in the light of judgment Annexure P-7, with all the consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 14.09.2023, passed in CWPOA No.2050 of 2020, titled Naveen Nischal Sood and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents for consideration of their case in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that representation, if any filed by the petitioners, shall be decided in terms of aforesaid judgment, if applicable. 3 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Naveen Nischal Sood (supra) and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed in Naveen Nischal Sood (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 07, 2025 (shankar)