IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2903 of 2019 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chet Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to make representation to the respondents for redressal of his grievance in terms of judgments rendered by this Court in CWP No.2467 of 2015 titled as Villam Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others and in CWP No.2047 of 2023, titled Rajni Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , with the direction to the respondents to decide the same in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents within a period of one week, praying therein for consideration of his case in light of judgment passed by this Court in Villam Singh and Rajni Sharma’s case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12,2025 (shankar)