IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7691 of 2024 Date of Decision: 22.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manish Kumar …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: .Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to decide the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P-4, P-7, P-9, P-11 and P-13) in light of Punjab Police Rules, particularly Rule 12.25 and to consider the case of the petitioner for reenrollment/re-instatement on the same rank(Head Constable” (ii) That the respondent authorities may be directed to re- enroll/re-instate the petitioner at the same rank and also grant him notional benefits within time bound period.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, by way of filing reply to the petition, afore prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been opposed by the respondents, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner made available copy of judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8137of 2023, titled Prem Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to state that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court in afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused the judgment passed in Prem Lal case (supra), fairly states that he shall have no objection to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit vis-à-vis judgment passed by Court in Prem Lal case (supra), this Court finds that issue with regard to reenrollment of police constable after his volunteer retirement stands adjudicated by this Court in Prem Lal case(supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the 3 parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, in the event of petitioner’s being found similar situate to the Prem Lal case (supra), he shall be granted similar benefits expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 22,2025 (shankar)