IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1773 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Rajender Thakur and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are permitted to file representation for redressal of their grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. 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 reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of their grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks in light of Taj Mohammad (supra). 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of aforesaid judgment, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)