IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19417 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Munish Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 21.03.2024 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8148 of 2022, titled Yashwant Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar 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 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 representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Yashwant Kumar (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 petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 10, 2025 (shankar)