IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20612 of 2025 and connected matters. Decided on: 30.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.20612 of 2025 Heera Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.20620 of 2025 Vipan Kang …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.20622 of 2025 Pankaj Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.20630 of 2025 Ashwani Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 5. CWP No.20632 of 2025 Kavi Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.20636 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.20638 of 2025 Manohar Lal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Sharma and Mr Vipin Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the in accordance with law 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 4 as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 30, 2025 Judge R.Atal