IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6480 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hans Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: 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, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, especially relief clause, this Court finds that prayer has been made by the petitioner through instant petition to place him at appropriate position in the seniority list. Since representation in this regard is yet to be decided by the competent authority, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2