( 2025:HHC:29214 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13896 of 2025 Decided on: 29th August, 2025 Dev Raj Sharma .......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 petitioner: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Dy. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 04.09.2021 passed in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. He submits that the petitioner has already made a representation to the competent authority and he will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent authority i.e. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29214 ) 2 respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment in Madan Lal (supra). 3. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-1 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.3341 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioner in CWP No.3341 of 2019, he shall be given all the benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.3341 of 2019 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 29, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge