1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1942 of 2008. Decided on: 29.4.2011. Inder Singh Uttam ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. None for respondents No. 3 & 4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner has already made a representation (Annexure P-4), dated 6th November, 2006 for redressel of his grievance, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S. Gahlot vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 1996, SC 351. The same has not been decided till date. 2. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the representation made by the petitioner on 6th November, 2006 (Annexure P-4) in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited above, within a period of eight 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 weeks, after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. In the eventuality of the representation (Annexrue P-4) being decided in favour of the petitioner, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits. All the affected parties have an opportunity of being heard before any final decision is taken on the representation (Annexure P-4), dated 6th November, 2006 made by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. April 29, 2011. (hl)