IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5521 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shivani Priya, proxy counsel, for Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Though reply on behalf of respondents/State is on record, whereby claim of the petitioner has been seriously refuted, but during proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation for redressal of his grievance with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment dated 16.05.2023, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5077 of 2020 titled as Dila Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. 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 two weeks for redressal of his grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, 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 speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)