IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8275 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Manju Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Bali and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute raised in the instant petition, has been adjudicated by this Court in case Anant Ram & Ors. v. State of H.P. and others, CWPOA No. 1660 of 2020, decided on 15.6.2023, as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide her case in light of aforesaid judgment. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. - 2 - 3. Having taken note of the issue raised in the petition vis-à- vis judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the issue has been adjudicated by this Court in Anant Ram, supra, as such no prejudice would be caused to either of parties, in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Anant Ram, supra. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today, in light of Anant Ram supra. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, before appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. May 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge