IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6469 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Baldev Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2013 and release consequential benefits (arrears) till retirement along with interest of 12% per annum. (iii) That respondents may be directed to release the arrears on account of retrospective regularization of similar situated persons as per annexure P-5 and P-6.” 2. Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the judgment passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 898-900 of 2019, titled State - 2 - of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Pinju Ram etc and order dated 12.9.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Execution Petition (T) No. 30 of 2020 titled Shesh Paul v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and connected matter, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings stands already adjudicated and 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 the aforesaid judgment/order. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition vis-à- vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this court is convinced that issued sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, stands already decided and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Pinju Ram and Shesh Paul (supra). 4. 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 case of the petitioner in light of Pinju Ram and Shesh Paul (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order and in case petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner - 3 - in the aforesaid cases, he shall also be extended similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications also stand disposed of. May 22, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge