IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13726 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Joginder Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus HRTC & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014 (Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) decided on 17.07.2014. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-1 of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed in Nek Ram (supra). Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioner in aforesaid judgment, he shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)