IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5053 of 2025 Date of Decision: 7.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sita Ram ……...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. Vivek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: 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, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Nandita Guleria, Advocate vice Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 9.5.2022, passed in CWP No. 6443 of 2021, titled Babu Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters) and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 25.4.2024 (Annexure P-2) in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. 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. 3. 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 the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of Babu Ram (supra) 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. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. April 7, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge