IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20864 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 1st January, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.20864 of 2025 Lucky and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.20866 of 2025 Neelam Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.20872 of 2025 Arvind Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.20876 of 2025 Pushpa Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.20882 of 2025 Rajneesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (Annexure P-3) seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.2056 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Dass2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2026 Judge Mukesh