IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4094 of 2008. Decided on: 07.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Jagdish Chand. … 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 : None. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): Petitioner has already made a representation for the redressal of his grievance vide Annexure P-5/A on 21.3.1995. He has also served legal notice on the respondents. However, the representation made by the petitioner till date has not been decided by the second respondent. 2. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to decide the representation made vide Annexure P-5/A within a period of ten weeks after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment by passing a speaking order. In case the representation is decided in favour of the petitioner, he shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 3. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 07, 2010. (sck).