JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide representation, Annexure P-2, in the light of judgment dated 8.5.2012 rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 4324-4325 of 2012, titled as Jagan Nath Vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. We notice that representation unfortunately is not addressed to respondent No.2, as such, we leave it open for the petitioner to approach respondent No.2, making a detailed representation, also indicating as to how this case is covered with the directions issued vide judgment, supra. 3. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General assures the Court that decision on the representation of the petitioner shall be taken by the appropriate/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. 4. No other point is urged. 5. As such, as prayed for, leaving all questions open, we dispose of the present petition with the direction that respondent/competent authority shall consider and decide representation of the petitioner, to be filed by him within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, then authority shall assign reasons while deciding the representation, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to place additional material on record, if any. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s) , if any.