IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1301 of 2021 Date of Decision: 23.7.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chaman Lal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 789 of 2024, case titled as “Ram Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided on 4.7.2024, further upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide judgment 27.2.2025 in LPA No. 60 of 2025, case titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Singh, which has also attained finality and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. - 2 - 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Ram Singh (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide transfer case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file representation within one week, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners 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 - 3 - the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. July 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge