IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17706 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 9th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.17706 of 2026 Rattan Lal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.17708 of 2026 Rajeev Kumar Gautam …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.17709 of 2026 Piar Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.17711 of 2026 Deep Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.17713 of 2026 Jagat Paul …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (Annexure P-3 in all the writ petitions) seeking applicability of Vijay Parmar and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh2 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 Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.9321 of 2025, decided on 06.04.2026 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 October 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh