IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8036/2024 Decided on: 09.04.2025 Tanzin Rigzin …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General . Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Even though the reply has not been filed, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Swami Raj Vs. State of H.P. 2 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2CWPOA No.5015/2019 decided on 07.09.2020 2 judgments, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Additional Advocate General. 3. In view of above submissions, but without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in light of the aforesaid judgments within a period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 9th April 2025(rohit)