2026:HHC:9346 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No.2560 of 2019 Decided on: 25 th March, 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Pankesh Kumar Verma and others ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is no more res integra, in view of the decision passed by this Court on 23.12.2025 in CWPOA No.2550 of 2019, titled, Arif Hussain and others vs. State of H.P and others, alongwith connected matters (lead case CWPOA No.2488 of 2019, titled, Hitesh 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others) and his case is covered by the said judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that instead of giving directions to the respondents to cover the case of the petitioners as per decision passed in CWPOA No.2488 of 2019, a specific reference be made to cover their case in view of the decision passed in CWPOA No.2550 of 2019. 3. Since all the petitions have been decided by a common judgment, lead case of which was Hitesh Kumar (supra), it will not make much difference whether the case is covered by Arif Hussain (supra) or Hitesh Kumar (supra). 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation submits that he does not have any objection if the petition is disposed of, directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioners in light of the judgment passed by this Court referred above. However, he 3 categorically submits that in case the facts of the case are not same, respondent No.2-Corporation will take appropriate decision, but in case the facts are similar as that of aforementioned decision passed by this court in Hitesh Kumar (supra) along with connected petitions, respondent No.2-Corporation shall examine the same and will also extend the similar benefits to the petitioners, provided the judgment has attained finality and not assailed by the Corporation. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the decision passed in CWPOA No.2488 of 2019, titled, Hitesh Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others and connected petitions, within a period of two months from today. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 25 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge