IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 4269 of 2019 Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Arvind Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No. 31012 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application filed for early hearing, same is allowed and disposed of accordingly. CWP No. 4269 of 2019 Though by way of filing reply, respondents have seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioner, but during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority in terms of - 2 - judgment dated 7.4.2016, passed in CWP No.2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, in a time bound manner. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Villam Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. December 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), manjit Judge