( 2025:HHC:29066 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13856 of 2025 Decided on: 28th August, 2025 Neeraj Verma .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Dy.A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue arising in the instant petition 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. He submits that the petitioner has already made representation to the competent authority and he will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29066 ) 2 authority i.e. respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner 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 representation of the petitioner Annexure P-5 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 petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP No.1638 of 2024, he 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 petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 28, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge