IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9605 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajender Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are permitted to make representation to the respondents for redressal of their grievance in terms of judgment dated 08.08.2023, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5043 of 2022, titled Sunita Sangroli 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 petitioners shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and fair stand taken by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file representation to the respondents within a period of one week, praying therein for consideration of their case in light of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sunita Sangroli case (supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the respondents within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 16, 2025 (shankar)