IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11923 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3047 of 2020 titled as Jagdish Kumar & others. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagdish Kumar (supra) and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representation for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-2), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Jagdish Kumar (supra), 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 being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. July 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2