IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2646 of 2025 Decided on: 27th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ratti Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the office order dated 16.10.2020 (Annexure P- 1) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the recovery - of Rs. 20,835/- already effected be directed to be released to the petitioner forthwith. ii. That the speaking order dated 01.09.2023 Annexure P -5 may kindly be quashed and set. iii. That the petition of the petitioner may kindly be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - decided at par with his counter partner /warder who has also challenged the recovery order by way of C.W.P. No. 673/2023.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted writ petition, Ratti Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the decision rendered in Bihari Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors3. The respondents vide order dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) held that petitioner’s case was not covered in terms of Bihari Lal’s3 case and accordingly dismissed his representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequently, Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors4 was filed. The petitioner therein had the same grievance as is that of the present petitioner. The facts in case of Roop Lal4 were also similar to that of the facts of the present case. Roop Lal’s4 case was adjudicated in his favour. Present petitioner thereafter preferred a representation dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) requesting the respondents to 2 CWP No. 673 of 2023 decided on 24.07.2023 3 CWPOA No. 5459 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matter on 12.12.2022 4 CWP No. 672 of 2023, decided on 18.10.2023 - 3 - consider his case once again in light of decision rendered in Roop Lal’s4 case. Petitioner’s grievance is that the same has not been considered by the respondents till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondents/ Competent Authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within a time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above, notwithstanding order dated 01.09.2023, (Annexure P-6), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents /Competent Authority to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 27, 2025 R.Atal