IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10317 of 2026 Decided on: 03.07.2026 Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?15 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Addl AG. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof, representation filed by the petitioner stands rejected by the Authority by observing that the case of the petitioner was ordered to be decided in light of CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as Inder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others and as the judgment passed in the said case was pending adjudication in the appeal before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, therefore, the representation of the petitioner cannot be allowed. 3. This Court is of the considered view that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner on this count is not sustainable 15 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? in law. As the direction of the Court was to decide the representation of the petitioner in terms of the judgment passed in Inder Singh’s case (supra) and if in the opinion of the Authority, in light of the fact that the State had filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in Inder Singh’s case, the issue had yet not attained finality, the authority would have been well advised to have had kept the representation of the petitioner pending, awaiting the outcome of the Letters Patent Appeal, after seeking necessary extension of time from this Court. However, rejection of the representation of the petitioner on this count demonstrates complete non-application of mind by the Authority. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Authority concerned is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the representation of the petitioner be decided afresh within four weeks as from the date of decision of the letters patent appeal preferred by the State in Inder Singh’s case by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 03, 2026 (narender)