IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14077 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-7) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 07.05.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.244 of 2019, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Narender Kumar, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.9148 of 2021, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment 3. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Narender Kumar case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)