IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2433 of 2022 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Surjeet Singh Pathania …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan and Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned order 16.12.2020 (Annexure P-4), 02.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) and 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-7 Colly) as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law; (b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to re-fix the salary of the petitioner by counting his entire approved military service of 24 years in terms of Section 5 of the Demoblished Rules supra with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intents and also pay arrears thereof alongwith interest thereon @ 18% pa;” 2. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6443 of 2021, titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. 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 aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 3 orders thereupon. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)