2025:HHC:10691 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6383 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Babu Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the instant writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and the respondents be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in consonance with the judgment dated 9.9.2010.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2735 of 2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajal Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner in terms of instant order shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Careful perusal of pleadings adduced on record, which are supported by an affidavit reveals that prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had filed CWP No. 5609 of 2010 titled as Babu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., which was disposed of vide judgment dated 09.09.2010 (Annexure P-1), thereby issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove. It appears that at the relevant time, petitioner had failed to file representation. Subsequently, petitioner has filed representation dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-3), which has not been decided. Since vide instant judgment, this Court intends to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that judgment passed in Rakesh Kumar (supra) has already attained finality, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties, in case necessary directions are issued to the respondents. Moreover, careful perusal of 2 averments contained in the petition clearly reveals that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Rakesh Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. All pending applications stand disposed of. April 23, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3