2026:HHC:10910 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 14509 of 2025 Decided on : 08.04.2026 Munish Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash and set-aside the Annexure P-7 i.e. impugned office order dated 17-07- 2025 in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay the grant-in-aid to the Petitioner w.e.f. 07-05-2016 in terms of the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Apex Court as per in the interest of justice and fair play alongwith upto date 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10910 interest.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P-7, appended with the writ petition and submitted that previously also, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 6987 of 2024, titled Munish Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 29.05.2025, disposed of the case with the direction that respondents were to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed in CWP No.2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors and judgment dated 10.6.2024, passed in CWP No. 673 of 2020, titled as Hans Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that while deciding the representation, vide Annexure P-7, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his case was different from Villam Singh’s case (supra) and as far as Hans Raj’s case (supra) is concerned, the same had not attained finality. 4. Learned counsel submitted that now the judgment 3 2026:HHC:10910 passed by this Court in Hans Raj’s case (supra), has attained finality. He referred to Annexure P-8 to demonstrate that Letters Patent Appeal has been dismissed and he also handed over a copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in terms whereof, Special Leave Petition has been dismissed. 5. In light of this fact, as the judgment passed in Hans Raj’s case (supra), has now attained finality, this petition is disposed of by setting aside impugned order (Annexure P-7), with issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to confer same benefits upon the petitioner as stands conferred upon Hans Raj by this Court, because now there is no dispute that the case of the petitioner is covered by Hans Raj’s case (supra), as is the implied admission of the Department as per order Annexure P-7. Let needful be done, within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 08, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)