IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5075 of 2020 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Raj Kumari …….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. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 12.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.4271 of 2021, titled as Gurcharan Singh Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Though reply filed by respondents reveals that relief, as prayed for, has been granted, but on notional basis and actual monetary benefits have been denied on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching the competent Court of law, however, learned Additional Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon taking note of the fact that petition at hand has been filed by widow of deceased employee, who cannot be said to have any knowledge with regard to the limitation. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)