2025:HHC:6044 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3513 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Virender Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawanish K.Shukla, 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 Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the impugned action of the respondents, whereby, petitioner has been denied the benefit of Earned Leave, being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and against the settled law of jurisprudence. (ii) That, the writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Earned Leave retrospectively as per the mandate of The CCS (Leave) Rules 1972. (iii) That, a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to directing the respondent to decide the request/representations (Annexure P-7) as per the mandate of the Sunita Sangroli's case Judgment in the interest of justice.” 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 Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No. 5043 of 2022 titled Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.. 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, filed by the petitioner 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-7), 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 Sunita Sangroli (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3