IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2547 of 2026 Decided on: 5th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulakh Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. 2. In view of the pleadings, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appearing parties and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, neither notice of this petition is required to be issued to respondents No.6 & 7 nor reply is required to be called for from the appearing 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s grievance as projected by his learned counsel is that there have been illegalities and irregularities in appointment of respondent No.7 in respondent No.6- Co-operative Agriculture Service Society. Despite complaints made by the petitioner with respect to illegal continuation of respondent No.7 on the post of Secretary of respondent No.6-Society and payment of salary to him, which he did not deserve, no effective action was taken in the matter by the concerned authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the complaints made by the petitioner to different authorities as also some official correspondences on the subject matter appended alongwith the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had lastly represented on 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) to the concerned District & State Authorities for examining and investigating the allegations leveled by him against respondents No.6 & 7. That the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents No.3 to 5/competent authority(s) are directed to examine petitioner’s complaints, more particularly dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) and 3 take it to its logical conclusion in accordance with law in a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.3 to 5/competent authority to examine petitioner’s complaints, more particularly application/complaint dated 01.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) and take action, if any, required in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 05, 2026 Judge Mukesh