2025:HHC:4551 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2987 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Prakash Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Proxy counsel for Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 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, for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation for redressal of his grievance with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 titled as The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL & Ors. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. 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 petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievance as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2