IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2429 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Surat Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul G. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17th August, 2023 passed by this Court in CWPOA No.3114 of 2019, titled as Dr. Kewal Krishan and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation (Annexure P-4) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Dr. Kewal Krishan case (supra). 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 a speaking order thereupon. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)