IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7757 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj and Mr. Yash Raj Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That the Office Order dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the recovery of Rs. 20,835/- already effected be directed to be released to the petitioner forthwith. ii. That the petition of the petitioner may kindly be decided at par with his counter partner/warder who has also challenged the recovery order by way of C.W.P. No. 672/2023 (Annexure P- 3)” 2. Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions - 2 - are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2), in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 30, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge