IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10551 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lalita Kumari 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 Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with 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 notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation (Annexure P-2) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 01.11.2023, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment 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-2) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)