IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3325 of 2020 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Keshav Ram ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-4), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sheela Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. November 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2