IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14613 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Meera Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed by Principal Division Bench this Court in LPA No.105 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Chand & Ors. along with connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Chand (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Rakesh Chand (supra), expeditiously, preferably 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2