IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4173 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashish Mahajan ……...Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1325 of 2013 titled Yashpal Singh and others Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Limited and another along with connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Yashpal Singh (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 Yashpal Singh (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner 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 the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. June 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2