IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15935 of 2020 Date of Decision: 10.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Puran Chand …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though in the month of November, 2024 petitioner had filed representation to the Secretary (Election)-cum- Chief Electoral Officer, Himachal Pradesh, praying therein for his promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar (Election) against the post, which has fallen vacant on 30.04.2024 on account of retirement of Sh. Tej Singh, but till date, neither representation has been decided nor he has been promoted to the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General 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 dated 5.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) as well as reminder dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-3), if not already decided, is decided within a period of four weeks. 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 order, taking note of the rules occupying the fields. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 10, 2025 (shankar)