IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13211 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner’s, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.03.2024, passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8148 of 2022, titled as Yashwant Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2056 of 2023, titled Ghanshyam Dass and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-1) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Yashwant Kumar’ and Ghanshyam Dass 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 petitioners 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18, 2025 (shankar)