IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7547 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lata Kumari and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma and Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocates. 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. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2075 of 2020, titled as Santosh Kumari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, along with connected matters, and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, 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 he case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Santosh Kumari (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 petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)