IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1711 of 2019 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Nomi Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 27.06.2025, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6688 of 2021, titled Bimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Advocate General representing the respondents-State is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)