2025:HHC:3182 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1097 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dalbir Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Akriti Rana, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the respondents directing to count the period of approved military service towards fixation of pay in favour of petitioner from the date of his joining civil employment, and further direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, along with interest. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner in the light of law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 3126 of 2021 Mukesh Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. and a/w connected matters titled as in a time bound manner. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to release all consequential benefits such as arrears etc. in favour of the petitioner along with interest.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 3126 of 2024 titled Mukesh Thakur & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., which has attained finality. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, made shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-9), this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Mukesh Thakur (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the 2 needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3