IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4433 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ranjeet Singh …….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. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Pursuant to order dated 27.03.2025, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 20th August, 2023, addressed to all the Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, to state that necessary directions already stand issued regarding implementation of the judgments passed by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in favour of various Para-teachers on the analogy of order/judgment passed in CWP No.4954 of 2012, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled Madan Lal and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and in CWPOA No.7661 of 2022 titled Pushap Raj Khimta and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. He fairly states that since in terms of order dated 1st August 2024 passed by this Court in Execution Petition No.445 of 2024 (Annexure P- 3) filed by the petitioner, case of the petitioner was required to be considered in light of judgment passed by this Court in Pushap Raj Khimta case (supra), respondents otherwise have no option, but to do the needful. He states that needful, if not already done, shall be done expeditiously. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition at hand, is that though in terms of order dated 1.8.2024 passed by this Court in the execution petition, as detailed hereinabove, case of the petitioner was required to be considered in light of judgment passed by this Court in Pushap Raj Khimta case (supra), but despite there being repeated requests, needful is not done by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse representation dated 28.08.2024(Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner states that no orders on the afore representation have 3 been passed till date, as a result thereof, petitioner is suffering for no fault of him. 3. 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 respondent No.3 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Pushap Raj Khimta case (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon and in case petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in Pushap Raj Khimta case, he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 08, 2025 (shankar)