IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16665 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Singh Rana & others …….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. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 07.04.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 titled Inder Singh Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matter, and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) having been filed by the petitioners, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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-3) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Inder Singh 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 petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 28,2025 (shankar)