IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5207 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Vidya Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gambhir Singh Chauhan, 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, for respondent No.1/State. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3050 of 2014, tilted Nek Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 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 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, 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 representation(Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Nek Ram’s 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 April 08,2025 (shankar)