IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6729 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bhagat Chand and Others …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hemant Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are permitted to file representation for redressal of their grievance with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with other connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of 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 petitioners to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of their grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)