IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 20014 of 2025 Decided on: 19.12.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nihal Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Kumari Bhatwan, Advocate vice Mr. Prajwal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No. 1 to 3, which is waived of by learned Deputy Advocate General. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to re-instate the services of the petitioner as PET and adjust him at Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Shilli Janja where the post of PET is lying vacant in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) Direct the respondents to release the due admissible arrears/Grant-in-Aid in favour of 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner since his initial engagement w.e.f. 03.07.2010 to 2017, in the interest of justice.” 3. Confronted with the question of delay and laches in claiming the relief of re- instatement of the petitioner when as per case set up, services of the petitioner were terminated in December, 2017, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she is under instructions not to press relief No.(i). Learned counsel further submits that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only qua relief No. (ii) that is for release of due and admissible emoluments to the petitioner for the period during which he discharged services with the respondents. This petition is according being heard only qua relief No. (ii), relief No.(i) is treated to have been given up. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/ Competent Authority is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) qua relief No. (ii) within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 3 petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law only qua relief No. (ii) within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 19, 2025 Judge yogesh