2025:HHC:31094 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14733 of 2025 Decided on: September 11, 2025 ______________________________________________________________ Smt. Simro Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notices on behalf of the respondents. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, as such, same is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition stands already adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017 titled Baldev v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and - 2 - connected matters decided on 22.2.2022 (Annexure P-7), as such, his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Baldev supra, in a time bound manner. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that he is not averse the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. 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 respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the case of petitioner in light of Baldev supra, within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. 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 taking note of facts, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 11, 2025 (Vikrant)