IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4975 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Chander Prakash Verma and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. K.C. Chauhan and Ms. Suchitra Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpender Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sumit Sharma & Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocates General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:- “That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide pending representation dated 21.01.2019 (Annexure P-2) and to carry out further necessary amendment in HRTC (Class I, II, III & IV) Service Recruitment, Promotion and certain conditions of Service Regulations and fix small percent quota for promotion of degree holder/graduate Conductors for the posts of Inspectors and to make provision of Limited Direct Recruitment of Chief - 2 - Inspectors (25% quota) for degree holders/graduate Conductors.” 2. Before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 21.1.2019 (Annexure P-2), which is pending consideration before the competent authority, in time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respective respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, fairly state that they have no objection to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 21.1.2019 (Annexure P- 2) having been filed by the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass - 3 - a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge