IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.839 of 2026 Date of Decision: 9.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Balak Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 21.3.2024, passed in CWP No. 2056 of 2023, titled as Ghanshyam Dass and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Ghanshyam Dass (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is - 2 - not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Ghanshyam Dass (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 4. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of Ghanshyam Dass (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 9, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge