IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14020 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.08.2025 Parmod Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) decided on 29.11.2024. He further submits that the petitioners have already submitted representation to the competent authority and copy of which 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. It is further submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied at this stage, in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, Annexure P-7, 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 aforesaid representation of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed in Mohit Sharma (supra). Needless to say that in case the petitioners are found similarly situated, as the petitioners in aforesaid judgment, they shall also be granted the same benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 30th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)