IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 7731 of 2008. Decided on: 13.07.2010. Harbans Singh. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The petitioner has made a representation for the redressal of his grievance to District Primary Education Officer vide Annexure A-11. However, the same has not been decided till date. Once the representation has been made by an employee for the redressal of his grievance, the same is required to be addressed to at the earliest. 2. Accordingly, even though the petitioner has made a representation to the District Primary Education Officer (Annexure A-11), however, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 2, i.e., Director of Primary Education, H.P. to decide the same within a period of ten weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found suitable, he shall be entitled to all the consequential 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. benefits. While deciding the representation, the respondent No. 2 shall also take into consideration the case of Shri Hari Dutt, who was also promoted and has forgone his promotion as per the certificate issued by the Block Primary Education Officer. 3. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 13, 2010. (bhupender)