IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3975 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Narender Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representation (Annexure P-10) in light of judgment dated 7.11.2024 passed in CWP No. 8839 of 2023, titled Pushap Kumar and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and judgment dated 29.11.2024, passed in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled Mohit Sharma and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., passed by coordinate Benches of this Court, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states - 2 - that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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/competent authority to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-10) of the petitioners in light of Pushap Kumar and Mohit Sharma (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge