IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15574 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 26th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15574 of 2025 Hoshiyar Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15576 of 2025 Sher Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.15578 of 2025 Sarojana Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.15580 of 2025 Purshottam Kumar and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of the decision rendered in CWP No.1638 of 2024, titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 29.11.2024, have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(ies) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide 3 the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma (supra) within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( Virender Singh ) September 26, 2025 Judge Mukesh