IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3305 of 2024 Date of Decision: 14.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Salochana Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi versus State of H.P. and others and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-VII) having been filed by the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 pending representation dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-VII) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Sheela Devi case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 14,2025 (shankar)