IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16167 of 2026 Decided on: 16.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Basu Dev and Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors Vs. UOI and Ors2 and Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka3 for providing them reservation in promotion on the ground that they are employees of the respondents and suffering with benchmark disabilities. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (2016)3 SCC 153 3 (2020)19 SCC 572 2 Petitioners seek promotion in accordance with law laid down in above decisions as also in light of respondents’ instructions circulated under office letter dated 27.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred several representations for the redressal of their grievances and some of them are enclosed as Annexure P-3 Colly, which have not been decided till date by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to file comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/ Competent Authority for redressal of their grievances and the respondents/Competent Authority is directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed by permitting the petitioners to file comprehensive representation(s) within one week, which shall be decided by the respondents /Competent Authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law and also keeping in view the aforesaid judgments 3 as also the office instructions. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 16, 2026 Judge R.Atal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16167 of 2026 Decided on: 16.09.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Basu Dev and Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Ors Vs. UOI and Ors2 and Siddaraju Vs. State of Karnataka3 for providing them reservation in promotion on the ground that they are employees of the respondents and suffering with benchmark disabilities. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (2016)3 SCC 153 3 (2020)19 SCC 572 2 Petitioners seek promotion in accordance with law laid down in above decisions as also in light of respondents’ instructions circulated under office letter dated 27.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred several representations for the redressal of their grievances and some of them are enclosed as Annexure P-3 Colly, which have not been decided till date by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to file comprehensive representation(s) to the respondents/ Competent Authority for redressal of their grievances and the respondents/Competent Authority is directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed by permitting the petitioners to file comprehensive representation(s) within one week, which shall be decided by the respondents /Competent Authority within three weeks from the date of receipt of the same, in accordance with law and also keeping in view the aforesaid judgments 3 as also the office instructions. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 16, 2026 Judge R.Atal