IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7949 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Neelam Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, proxy counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.1.2018, passed in TA No. 4478 of 2015, titled Parvati Sharma and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. and judgment dated 21.12.2022 passed in CWP No. 3038 of 2022, titled Nisha Kumari and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 16.7.2024 (Annexure P-9) having been filed by the petitioner in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. Ms. Santosh Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that she 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 the pending representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of afore judgments. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge