IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5842 of 2022 Decided on: 18th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Om Parkash and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Despite grant of repeated opportunities, the respondents have not filed reply. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 2. Petitioners have prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. That office memorandum dated 06-07-2020 (Annexure P-10) and consequential letter (Annexures P-9 (Colly) may be quashed and set aside. b. That respondent may kindly be directed to credit the earned leaves in the leave account of petitioners, admissible to them due to retrospective regularization of their services. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 c. That all earned/privileged leaves which has not availed by petitioner when they have served the department after 6-2-2007, may be counted as earned leave, as part of consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court and same be credited in leave account of petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grievance of the petitioners in relation to the financial benefits in lieu of the earned leave falling to their credit on account of their retrospective regularization subject to maximum of 300 earned leaves in their total service career, has already been adjudicated upon in Anita Kumari Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide their respective cases in light of above decision within a fixed time-schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment by passing 2 CWP No.8382 of 2025, decided on 15.07.2025 3 appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh