IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8278 of 2023 with CWP Nos.8279, 8280 of 2023 & 8281 of 2023 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1.CWP No.8278 of 2023 Ravi Kant & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & other … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 2.CWP No.8279 of 2023 Rajesh Kumar & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3.CWP No.8280 of 2023 Sarita Kumari & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 4. CWP No.8281 of 2023 Sunil Dutt Sharma & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2171 of 2023, titled Hem Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners. 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(s) with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks in light of Hem Raj case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in 3 terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27,2025 (shankar)