IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1723 of 2019 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. B. Nandan Vasishta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner, who is working as PGT (Commerce) (School New) on contract basis w.e.f 02.07.2014, has prayed for the following main relief:- “a. Respondents may kindly be directed to relax the condition of completing B.Ed course as same benefit has been extended to similarly situated employees.” 2. Though by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner, but during proceedings of the case, learned 2 counsel for the petitioner filed CMP No.29511 of 2025, seeking therein permission to place on record additional documents, which are relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand. 3. Careful perusal of documents annexed with the application reveals that in similar facts and circumstances, ten persons have already been granted the benefit now being sought by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 a time bound manner in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2343 of 2021, titled as Devi Chand & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 18.05.2023, which has been complied with in COPC No.356 of 2023 on 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-13). 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of petitioner. 5. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment dated 18.05.2023, sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Naresh Kaul, learned counsel for the petitioner, that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such, no prejudice would be caused to either 3 of the parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Devi Chand (supra). 6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Devi Chand (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended 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. December 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge