IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14055 of 2024 Date of Decision:01.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jai Gopal Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur and Ms. Oshin Anand Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate vice Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.4644 of 2019, titled Harbans Singh Pathania versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and order dated 04.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9583 of 2024, titled Raj Kumar Jishtu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) in light of aforesaid judgment/order, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Pankaj Sawant, Advocate vice Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respective respondents, fairly state that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Harbans Singh Pathania and Raj Kumar Jishtu cases (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01,2025 (shankar)