IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16398 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 10th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16398 of 2024 Pavan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16410 of 2024 Jagdeep Kaundal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16412 of 2024 Geeta Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16416 of 2024 Rakesh Kumar Chandel …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 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. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon; Petitioners have filed representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-3, for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions to respondent No.2, but till date the same have not been adjudicated upon; Petitioners would be satisfied in case competent authority is directed to decide the representations in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. The above is not objected to by learned Additional Advocate General. 3. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law 3 within a period of eight weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh