IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6307 of 2022 Decided on: 18th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Kalotra …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: 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. Petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. That office memorandum dated 06-07-2020 (Annexure P-7) and consequential letter (Annexure P-8) may be quashed and set aside. b. That respondent may kindly be directed to credit the earned leaves in the leave account of petitioner, 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 petitioner. d. That respondents may also be directed to grant full arrears in lieu of retrospective regularization w.e.f. 6-2-2007, without any restriction of three years.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner in relation to the financial benefits in lieu of the earned leave falling to his credit on account of his retrospective regularization subject to maximum of 300 earned leaves in his total service career, has already been adjudicated upon in Anita Kumari Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide his case 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 case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into 2 CWP No.8382 of 2025, decided on 15.07.2025 3 consideration the above judgment by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 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