IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20875 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Tajinder Kaur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 04.10.2019 rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.54 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Om Prakash (alongwith connected matters), in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. January 2, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge