( 2025:HHC:29063 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13854 of 2025 Decided on: 28th August, 2025 Kamal Chand .......Petitioner versus H.P. State Forest Corporation and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate vice Mr.Abhishek Nagta, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025, titled as State of H.P. and Ors. vs. Surajmani and Ors. He seeks a direction to be treated at par with the petitioner in the case of Surajmani (supra). 3. The record reveals that the petitioner has not made any representation to the competent authority till date. In such 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29063 ) 2 circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his representation to the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks and on receipt of the representation, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide such representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks thereafter, strictly in terms of judgment in Surajmani (supra). 4. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 28, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge