IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17769 of 2026 Decided on: 9th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dinesh Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of petitioners No.1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 18, 19, 25, 27, 29 to 31, 33, 49, 55 to 58, 61, 63, 66, 69 to 74, 76, 80 to 83, 85 to 87, 89, 102, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 116, 123, 127, 129, 132, 134 to 136, 138, 145, 149, 151, 153, 160, 162, 164, 165, 167 to 169, 171 and 174 to 176. Learned counsel further submits that the remaining petitioners be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy by filing separate writ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petition(s) for the redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition. Prayer is accepted. Accordingly, this writ petition shall be treated to have been filed to the extent prayed for. Remaining petitioners shall be at liberty to file separate writ petition(s) for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with law. 2. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (Annexure P-3 Colly.) 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. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ 2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025 3 competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) 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 petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh