IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13189 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Khem Chand …….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. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates. For the Respondents:Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5 ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgments dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled Balo Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. No.2711 of 2017, titled Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters and as such, he would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-5) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, 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-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Balo Devi and Baldev 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 18,2025 (shankar)