IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13379 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Parkash Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal and Ms. Shagun Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.5.2019, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in CWP No. 244 of 2019, titled as “State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Narender Kumar, which has been further upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the par- ties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Narender Kumar’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the need- ful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending appli- cation(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 21, 2025 (manjit)