IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11251 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sumitra Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Jyoti Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Division Bench of this in CWP No. 4876 of 2022 titled Jai Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. and judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.144 of 2022 titled as Kashi Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court and Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash and Kashi Ram (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) in light of Jai Prakash and Kashi Ram (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. July 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2