IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 5092 of 2008. Decided on: 21.05.2010. Neema Negi. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of her grievance vide Annexure A-7 dated 8th October, 1997. The Executive Engineer sent the same to the Superintending Engineer on 27th October, 1997. It has come on record that the petitioner stands promoted vide office order dated 1st April, 1998, but she has not been promoted from the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - due date as per representation made by her. The representation should have been decided by now. 2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The Engineer- in-Chief is directed to decide the representation, dated 8th October, 1997 (Annexure A-7) made by the petitioner by a speaking order after the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, within a period of ten weeks. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 21, 2010. (sck).