IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3017 of 2020 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Suman Lata ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No.19583 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.3017 of 2020 Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sheela Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 07, 2027 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2