2025:HHC:6034 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3527 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tenzin Dolma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kaistha, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) To quash and set-aside the office order dated 31-08-2023 i.e. Annexure P-4 keeping in view the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court vide judgement dated 28-05-2024 passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 along with connected matter. (ii) To reengage the petitioner as Class-IV (Peon-cum-Chowkidar) at Government Senior Secondary School Randal Distt. Kullu (H.P.) (iii) That to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 31-08-2023 till the date of reengagement in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s (supra) 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. 3. 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. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-5), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Satya Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of 2 being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3