IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11415 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Neetu Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that her client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No.4478 of 2015, titled as Parvati Sharma and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 11.01.2018 and judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3038 of 2022, titled as Nisha Kumari and Others Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., decided on 21.12.2022, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. 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-3) of the petitioner 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)