IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6583, 6581, 6585, 6587, 6643, 6721, 6741 and 6743 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.6583 of 2025 Usha Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 2. CWP No.6581 of 2025 Shiv Kumar Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 3. CWP No.6585 of 2025 Naresh Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 4. CWP No.6587 of 2025 Satish Kumar Mittal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 5. CWP No.6643 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 6. CWP No.6721 of 2025 Janak Raj Balhotra ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 2 7. CWP No.6741 of 2025 Manju Parti ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents 8. CWP No.6743 of 2025 Anita Vohra ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur & Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3 & 4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a copy of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in in CWPOA No.83 of 2020, titled as Anil Kumar Kohli vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.03.2024, to assert that the issue, as raised 3 by the petitioners in the instant petitions, stands decided vide aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners will be satisfied in case the instant petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. 3. The factual position is not denied. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions issued by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding Anil Kumar Kohli (supra). For all intents and purposes, the reasons assigned in aforesaid judgment and directions issued therein shall apply mutatis mutandis in the instant case, also with one clarification that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in case the respondents fail to pay the due and admissible amount as per aforesaid judgment within three months from the date of passing of this order. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. December 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge