2025:HHC:9964 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5425 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Devinder Mohan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to re-enrol as Home Guard as has been done in the other similarly situated cases.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 05.01.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3628 of 2020 titled as Inder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Inder Singh (supra) as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of his grievance as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2