IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7347 of 2008 Decided on: 7.4.2011 Milap Chand …Petitioner Versus Government of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the petitioner : Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Petitioner has already made representation to respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-PC for the redressal of his grievance. However, the same has not been decided by respondent No. 4 till date. 2. Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 to decide the representation made by the petitioner by passing a speaking/d\etailed order within a period of eight weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that while dealing with the representation made by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 shall take into consideration letter dated 7.2.1986 placed at page No. 29 of the paper book. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge April 7, 2011 (K. Attri) 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?