IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6379 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Geeta Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.12125 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and persons proposed to be arrayed as respondents No.5 and 6, as detailed in Para No.4 of the application, are ordered to be impleaded as party respondents No.5 and 6. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties, on the basis of amended memo of parties, annexed with the application. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.6379 of 2025 2. Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No.2274 of 2024 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on 28.05.2024. 3. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that since judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case has been stayed by the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.11306 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal, has been made available to this Court during proceedings of the case and same reads as under:- “(1) Delay condoned. (2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all the matters. (3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024 (4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s), is/are stayed.” 4. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case along with connected matters has been stayed, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of parties, petition at hand is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s case, shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal’s case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)