IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17395 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Jagdish Chand and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Anuja Mehta, proxy counsel, for Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation (Annexure P-9 Colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 04.09.2021, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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-9 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Madan Lal Sharma case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)