1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10981 of 2026 Decided on: 06.07.2026 Jitender Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Paul and Mr. Parul, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Sr. Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 to 6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No. 2 to 6, respectively. 2. In view of restrictive grievances urged for the petitioner during hearing of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to call for reply 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 from the respondents. Matter has been accordingly heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s main grievance is to the decision of respondent No.6- Member Secretary-cum- District Employment Officer, Kullu as conveyed in impugned office letter dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-23). In terms of the said decision, the District Level Committee, Kullu has not recommended the case of the petitioner for renewal/ empanelment under Skill Development Allowance Scheme, 2013 for the session 2025-26 to 2026-27. The said Committee has observed in the impugned office letter that petitioner institute has not followed the terms and conditions prescribed under the Skill Development Allowance Scheme, 2013; Therefore, the institute has been permitted to submit fresh application for renewal in future after following the parameters of the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the aforesaid rejection of renewal/ empanelment of petitioner under the Skill Development Allowance Scheme, 2013, the petitioner had submitted a detailed response on 21.04.2026 to the Member Secretary-cum- District Employment Officer, District Employment Exchage, Kullu (Annexure P-24). The petitioner therein inter alia pointed out that basis of 3 respondents’ rejecting petitioner’s renewal of empanelment is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case, the respondent No.6/Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid response furnished by the petitioner within time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.6/Competent Authority to consider and decide the response of petitioner dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-24) in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 06, 2026 Judge yogesh