IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3503 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Subhash Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Senior Assistant in the office of Block Development Officer Bhabanagar, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, as he has been denied promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II despite being eligible. It has been averred in the petition that though persons junior to the petitioner have been granted promotion against the post of Superintendent Grade-II, but without justifiable reason petitioner has been left out, as a result thereof, great prejudice has been caused to him. 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents on the basis of averments contained in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to representation (Annexure P-4) addressed to Director, RDD, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, 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 of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 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 orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2