Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.13689 of 2025
.
Date of Decision: 26.8.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Ram Krishan
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan K. Sharma and Ms. Tim Saran
Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
r Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Before reply, if any, could be called for from the
respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that
issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by
this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as "Inder Singh Thakur
and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith
connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025 and as such, petitioner
would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the
respondents to consider and decide his representation in light of
aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed
to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call
for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While
accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional
.
Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-3) filed
by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.
3. 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 Inder Singh
Thakur (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in
issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the
representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time
bound manner.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide
the representation (Annexure P-3) 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.
August 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
.
