IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7275 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kavita Chug …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to file representation for redressal of her grievance, with further direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment dated 08.08.2023, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022 titled as Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of her grievance, which in-turn, shall be decided by the competent authority, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)