IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6958/2025 Decided on: 28.04.2025 Pawan Kumar .…Petitioner Versus Sainik School Sujanpur & others …Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, Sr. Advocate as DSGI with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 1 to decide the complaint dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) made by the petitioner within a time bound period and save the petitioner from the atrocities which are being caused by the Respondent No. 2, 3 & Quarter Guard, whereby they have imposed the condition to the petitioner on 15.04.2025 that firstly he will do the work of Jam-daar by cleaning toilets, thereafter he will be allowed to mark his attendance and till today, they have not allowed the petitioner to mark his attendance and the petitioner did not clean the toilets, since from his initial date of appointment, he was working as Waiter and Cook in the Mess. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to deploy the petitioner for the same work as other Mess Workers have been deployed and further to allow the petitioner to mark his attendance in the attendance register. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 1 to take action against Respondent No. 2, 3 and Quarter Guard, who are causing atrocities against the petitioner due to conspiracy of Respondent No. 3.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to decide the complaint/representation dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid complaint/representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within six weeks. Copy of the decision so taken on his representation be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th April, 2025(Rohit)