IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.427 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Jeet Ram Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 5390 of 2024, titled as Surya Prabha and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr, decided on 28.5.2025 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-6) in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 2. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are 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 by this Court in Surya Prabha (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07, 2026 (shankar)