IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6872 of 2025 Decided on: 23rd May, 2025 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Tara Devi, Advocate vice Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, ADvocate. For the Respondents: Mr.   Y.P.S.   Dhaulta,   Additional Advocate General. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr.   Y.P.S. Dhaulta learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With   the   consent   of   learned   counsel   for   the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:­ “1.  to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction   in   nature   thereof,   directing   the   respondent department   to   treat   the   petitioners   as   having   been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 appointed   in   the   year   2002   with   all   consequential benefits for all purposes and intents; 2. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof   to   give   full   justice   to   the   petitioners   in   the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned   vice   counsel   for   the   petitioner submitted   that   the   case   of   the   petitioner   and   the   relief prayed for  by him are  squarely  covered in  terms  of the decision rendered in  Milat Ram & Ors.  Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned vice counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case, he is permitted to submit a fresh representation to the respondent/competent authority, whereafter, respondent/competent authority, be directed to decide the representation to be made by him, in a time bound manner. Learned Assistant Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 5. In   view   of   above   submissions,   but   without going into the merits of the case, the instant writ petition is disposed   of   by   permitting   the   petitioner   to   make   a representation   to   the   respondent/competent   authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of the aforesaid judgment, within a further period 2 CWPOA No.6850 of 2020, decided on 10.05.2023 3 of   six   weeks.   The   order   so   passed   shall   also   be communicated   to   the   petitioner.   Pending   miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 23, 2025 Judge rohit