IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13772 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 8th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.13772 of 2025 Rajnish Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.13776 of 2025 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.13778 of 2025 Suneel Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.13788 of 2025 Sita Ram Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (Annexure P-4) seeking applicability of Madan Lal Sharma. Versus State of H.P. & Anr.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.3341 of 2019 , decided on 04.11.2021 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Madan Lal Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 08, 2025 Judge R.Atal