IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4199 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amar Chand Chauhan …….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. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to judgment dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2683 of 2024, titled Bhupender Gupta vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 24.01.2024( Annexure P-4), in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that though disputed question of law are involved in the case but nonetheless representation, if any, shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 4. Consequently, in view of 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 dated 24.01.2024(Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Bhupender Gupta’s case (supra) 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders 3 and in case, petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in afore judgment, he shall also be granted similar benefits. 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 May 09,2025 (shankar)