IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 4417 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.03.2010 Kuldeep Kumar … Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be satisfied in case respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the representation already filed before respondent No. 1 sympathetically in view of the orders passed in other similar cases. The petitioner shall furnish the details of the similar cases before the Managing Director i.e. respondent No. 1, who shall dispose of the representation made by the petitioner within two months from today. In case, the representation is not available with respondent No. 1 for any reason, he can ask the petitioner to furnish a copy of the same or make fresh representation alongwith necessary documents. From the date of the filing of the fresh representation, if any, he shall dispose of the same within two months. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 the order passed by respondent No. 1 on petitioner’s representation, if he wants to challenge the same according to law. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main petition, all the pending Misc. Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Copy Dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 25, 2008 Judge (BSS) 3