--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.9273 of 2008. (OA No.525 of 2003) Decided on: July 11, 2011. Bishan Lal Sharma . …… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …….Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. A.K.Vashisath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, (oral): The main ground of challenge by the petitioner in the present petition is that he was not granted the benefit of approved military service rendered by him. He also preferred a representation Annexure A-1, which according to him is still pending and was not even responded to. The right of filing the reply by the State was closed by the erstwhile Tribunal on 30.5.2006, as despite various opportunities, no reply was filed. - 2 - 2. Learned Additional Advocate General makes a statement at Bar that in view of the averments made in the petition, respondents shall dispose of the representation made by the petitioner in a time bound manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner feels satisfied by this undertaking subject to making a fresh representation, if the earlier might not be traceable. 3. Therefore, in view of the above, let a fresh representation be made by the petitioner to respondent No.1 alongwith its Annexures and supporting documents, if any, within a period of three weeks, which shall be decided by respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks thereafter, on its receipt after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and if the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit sought, it be released to him at the earliest. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, in the above terms. (Surinder Singh ) Judge July 11, 2011. (Pds)