IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10663 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gulabi Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, 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, for respondent No. 1 to 4. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he 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 case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Baldev case (supra). 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 04, 2025 (shankar)