IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13893 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Prem Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-2), this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2