2025:HHC:4912 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3063 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Aashima Premy, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Sandeep K Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “ a) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner on regular basis against the vacant post of TGT(Arts) from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 17.08.2011 for all intents and purpose, with all consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay etc. within time bound manner. b) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 21.10.20-24 of the petitioner, Annexure P-3, within time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4912 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 19.12.2022 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. 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 to consider and decide the pending representation dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 2025:HHC:4912 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Umesh Jaswal case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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 March 05,2025 (shankar)