IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12511 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.08.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sunil Dutt …….Petitioner Versus HPSEBL and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3/State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents in the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case representation (Annexure P-13), having filed by him, is ordered to be decided in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 titled as Sidha Raju Vs. State of Karnataka, which has been otherwise implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh by issuing notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby all Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh have been apprised with regard to decision of Government of Himachal Pradesh to provide reservation in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDS) in the services of State Government. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, coupled with the fact that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sidha Raju’s case (supra), there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly state that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that issue of reservation in promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in the services of State Government has already been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sidha Raju’s case (supra) and after receipt of aforesaid judgment, State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12) has already decided to provide reservation in promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in State Government, if it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner, who admittedly falls in the category of Person with Benchmark Disabilities, in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner in light of 3 judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, as detailed hereinabove, as well as notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12), 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 petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)