IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 2496 of 2010. Decided on 24th June, 2011. _____________________________________________ Pawana Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has approached the erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by way of O.A. No. 1189 of 2004. The learned Tribunal directed the original application to be treated as representation to the Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh vide order dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure P-2). However, the same has not been decided till date. Once the order has been passed by the Court, the same was required to be complied with scrupulously. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2, i.e., Director of Higher Education to decide the representation/original application by passing a speaking/detailed order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 24, 2011. (bhupender) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - - 3 - `