1IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14849 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Neelam Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Afreen Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3144 of 2011-D, titled as Anju Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No. 3143 of 2011-D, titled as Manju Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anju Devi and Manju Devi (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner with regard to disposal of her representation. 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-3) in light of Anju Devi and Manju Devi (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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2