IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13740 of 2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Turanta Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Pranav Kaushal & Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) decided on 29.11.2014. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. It is further 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage, in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-5 of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed in Mohit Sharma (supra). Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioners in aforesaid judgment, he shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th August, 2024 Judge (Pardeep)