IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.637 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Sunder Singh Tekta …….Petitioner Versus HPSEB and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Pooja Thakur and Ms. Radha, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that her client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the competent authority to consider and decide his case in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP(Civil) No.18830 of 2021, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others and judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly state that they are not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgments, detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)