IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10884 of 2025 Decided on: 8th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jai Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 & 3, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “i. That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and an office order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to retire the petitioner at the age of 60 years as has been done in case of other incumbents/ workers. iii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 02.05.2025 of the petitioner in accordance with law.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him are squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Jagdish Ram Versus State of H.P. & others2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/ competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ 2 CWP No.4793 of 2024, decided on 24.09.2024 3 competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Jagdish Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 08, 2025 Judge Mukesh