IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12707 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Narender Pal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought following main reliefs: (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, whereby quashing and setting the impugned letter dated 24.06.2025, Annexure P-7, issued by the respondent No.3, being illegal and arbitrary. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure P-3 to the petitioner by re-fixing the pay of the petitioner on completion of two years of regular service of petitioner as Forest guard i.e. 01.04.2025, alongwith all consequential benefits from due date till the date of its actual realization in the interest of justice and fair play. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner for the petitioner states that since case of the petitioner is squarely covered by judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and judgment dated 7.4.2025 passed in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, but respondents have wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) vide Annexure P-7. He further states that since the respondents have not considered the case of petitioner in light of above said documents, and totally non- speaking order has been passed, as such, he would be content and satisfied in case, Annexure P-7 is quashed and set aside and representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) is re-considered in light of Mohit Sharma and Inder Singh Thakur, supra. 3. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He fairly states that he is not opposed to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to reconsider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6). 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6), afresh, 3 in light of Mohit Sharma and Inder Singh Thakur, supra, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and a speaking order be passed thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, against the consideration order, if so required and desired. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 06,2025 (shankar)