IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8827 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yudhvir Singh …….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: M/s Rajendra Gulati, Anil Kumar Manget and Suresh Saini, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in CWPOA No.2979 of 2020, titled Bhupinder Singh Mehta and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 18.03.2025 and CWP No.3642 of 2024, titled as Kamal Dev Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 08.04.2025, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, who fairly state that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with aforesaid judgments. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 taking note of the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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 May 27, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)