IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15210 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.09.2025. Rattan Singh Verma ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, 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 petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 (Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.) decided on 04.09.2021. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. It is further submitted that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:32999 ) petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-5 of the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed in Madan Lal (supra). Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioner in aforesaid judgment, she shall also be granted the same benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 22nd September, 2025 Judge (Veena Sharma)