IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15113 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the Appellate Authority- respondent No.3 to decide the pending appeal, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that appeal, having been filed by the petitioner, laying therein challenge to order of termination dated 22.03.2012 is pending consideration before Appellate Authority since February, 2025 and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the pending appeal within stipulated time. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to Appellate Authority- respondent No.3 to decide the pending appeal within a period of two months. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stakeholders. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 18, 2025 (shankar)