IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8143 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Bindra Devi & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol 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 his clients 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 judgment rendered by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7602 of 2010 titled Om Parkash versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. 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. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Om Parkash case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 16,2025 (shankar)