2026:HHC:24483 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9692 of 2026 Decided on: 24.06.2026 Jitesh Kumar and another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajpal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed office order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority on the ground that the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh Thakur and others vs. State of H.P. and others, on the basis of which, the petitioner is seeking reliefs, has yet not attained finality. 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the State is discriminating as whereas certain persons have been given the benefit of the judgment, the petitioner is being denied 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24483 the benefit thereof on the pretext that the judgment has not attained finality. 4. Learned Advocate General has submitted that as per his instructions, no discrimination is being done. He submitted that he has otherwise instructed the Departments that as the judgment in Inder Singh’s case has been assailed by way of a letters patent appeal, implementation thereof be put in abeyance till decision of the appeal. 5. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that if judgment passed in Inder Singh’s case (supra) has yet not attained finality, then prudence demanded that representation of the petitioner should not have been rejected by the Authority, rather the authority should have kept the same pending, awaiting the decision of the letters patent appeal and could have approached this Court, seeking extension of time to implement the judgment citing the above reason but rejection of the representation of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. 6. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, this petition is partly allowed and office order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), is quashed and set aside, with further direction that the Authority shall take a fresh call upon the representation of the petitioner after the decision of the letters patent appeal preferred in Inder Singh’s case (supra) within four weeks as from the date of decision in the 3 2026:HHC:24483 appeal. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 24, 2026 (narender)