IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9786 of 2026 Decided on 24th June, 2026 Vijay Pal Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Ruchika Khachi, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), in case whereof, the representations of the petitioners for consideration of their case in terms of the judgment in CWP No.11253 of 2025, titled Yashwant Kumar and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others has been rejected by the Authority on the ground that the judgment has not yet attained finality, as the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State is still pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench. 3. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the direction passed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in the writ petition filed by the petitioners was to decide their representations in light of the Yashwant Kumar’s case and the Authority should have waited for the outcome of the said Letters Patent Appeal and should have well advised to keep the representations pending by seeking extension of time from the Court, but rejection thereof on this count and also by referring to Ghanshyam Dass case is not sustainable in law. 4. Firstly, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench had not directed the Authority to consider the representations of the petitioners in light of Ghanshyam Dass case. That being so, the findings returned in the impugned order on the basis of Ghanshyam Dass judgment are not sustainable in law and are set aside. 5. Besides this, the rejection of the representations of the petitioners on the ground that Yashwant Kumar’s judgment is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench by way of a Letters Patent Appeal is set aside with the observation that a fresh decision shall be taken on the representations of the petitioners by the Authority in light of the Yashwant Kumar’s case only after the Letters Patent Appeal is decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Needful be done as form the date of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench by the Authority within four weeks. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 24, 2026 (Vinod)