IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16108 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 17th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16108 of 2026 Prakash Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16118 of 2026 Sandeep Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16179 of 2026 Sanjeev Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16180 of 2026 Dinesh Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 For the Petitioners: Mr. Prantap Sharma and Mr. Pavan Kumar, Advocates, in CWP No.16108 of 2026. Mr. Prashant Manhans, Advocate vice Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate, in CWP Nos.16118, 16179 and 16180 of 2026. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respective writ petitions) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025 3 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 17, 2026 Judge Mukesh