IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 18254 of 2025 Decided on:26.11.2025 Pushpinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. Petitioner had instituted Pushpinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others3, Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 and Chuni Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others5. The writ 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes 2CWP No.12389/2025, decided on 30.07.2025. 3CWP No. 2056 of 2023, alongwith connected matters decided on 21.03.2024 4CWP No.8148 of 2022 decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024 5CWP No.1540 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024 2 petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of above decisions. Pursuant thereto, respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same under order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) primarily on the grounds that above decisions have not attained finality as these have been assailed in LPA No. 316 of 2025. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking quashing of impugned order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) with further prayer to direct the respondents to confer him benefits flowing from the decisions rendered in Ghanshyam Dass3, Yashwant Kumar4 and Chuni Lal.5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mere pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal would not come in way of passing effective consideration order by the respondents on the basis of decisions render in Ghanshyam Dass3, Yashwant Kumar4 and Chuni Lal5 more so, since Ghanshyam Dass3 had already been implemented. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, submits that decision in Yashwant Kumar4 has been assailed by the 3 respondents in State of H.P. Vs. Chuni Lal6 and the same is yet pending adjudication, therefore, respondents be permitted to decide the case of the petitioner within one month after decision of LPA i.e. Sate of H.P.Vs. Chuni Lal6. 4. In view of above, impugned order dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside with further direction to respondent No.2/Competent Authority to decide the case of the petitioner afresh within one month from the date of decision of the State of H.P. Vs. Chuni Lal6. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 26th November, 2025(yogesh) 6 LPA No.205 of 2025