( 2025:HHC:29059 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13646 of 2025 along- with connected matters Decided on: 27th August, 2025 CWP No.13646 of 2025 Chatter Singh .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13648 of 2025 Hitesh Kumar and another .......Petitioners versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13650 of 2025 Niraj Bala .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13652 of 2025 Digvijay Singh .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13654 of 2025 Yogita Chauhan .......Petitioner ( 2025:HHC:29059 ) 2 versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13656 of 2025 Madan Lal .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13658 of 2025 Rahul .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13660 of 2025 Arun Kumar .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents CWP No.13708 of 2025 Monika Indolia .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. ( 2025:HHC:29059 ) 3 Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Anita Devi, Advocate in all the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr.L.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue arising in these petitions has already been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. She submits that the petitioners have already made representations to the competent authority and they will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra). 3. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners Annexure P-5 (in all the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29059 ) 4 petitions) within a period of eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Needless to say, in case the petitioners are found similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP No.1638 of 2024, they shall be given all the benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.1638 of 2024 within a further period of four weeks. 4. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 27, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge