IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4469 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 three weeks for redressal of his grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously 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. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2