1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.694 of 2026 Decided on: 08.01.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anoop Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the relief claimed for by the petitioner has already been adjudicated upon in Renuka Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others2 and the petitioner is seeking applicability of the said decision in his favour, therefore, respondents No. 4 & 5 are not necessary parties to the writ petition & as such their names be deleted from the array of parties. Prayer is accepted. Names of respondents No. 4 & 5 are ordered to be deleted from the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2CWP No.11260 of 2024, decided on 24.07.2025 2 array of the parties. Registry to carry necessary correction in the memo of parties. Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. Issue a Writ in nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent State to release grant-in-aid against the posts being held by the petitioner as per Grant-in-Aid Rules, 1997, from the date the petitioner is serving in the respondent No.4 school and to pay to the petitioners the arrears aloangwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum within such time, this Hon’ble Court deems fit; B. Issue a Writ in nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent state to release 95% grant-in-aid in favour of petitioner from 31.03.2012 till date against the posts being held by the petitioner as per Grant- in-Aid Rules, 1997 and pay the arrears alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum within such time, this Hon’ble Court deems fit; C. That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents No. 1 and 2 for taking over the services of the petitioner from 2013 as being done in case of other similarly situated persons vide Annexure P-8 and pay all consequential benefits including payment of salary at par with their counterparts teaching in the respondent department.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that factual matrix of the instant case, the issues involved and the reliefs prayed herein, have already been adjudicated 3 upon in Renuka Sharma.2 The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Learned counsel further submit that directions issued in Renuka Sharma2 be, therefore, issued in the instant petition as well. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General fairly acknowledges and admits the above position. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with the order that observations and findings recorded in Renuka Sharma2 shall be applicable to the case of the present petitioner as well. The direction issued therein shall mutatis mutandis be applied to the case of the petitioner. In terms of the said decision, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take over the services of the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 20.07.2011 with all consequential benefits. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 08, 2026 Judge yogesh