IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5793 of 2023 Date of Decision:05.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pradeep Kumar 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. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate. 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 the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated11.04.2012 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8708 of 2011, titled Chaman Lal Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, they 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. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 the case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Chaman Lal Thakur case (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. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 05,2025 (shankar)