IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15228 of 2025 Date of decision : 22.9.2025. Poonam Lata ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, DAG. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral): Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts 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 CWPOA No. 1695 of 2019, titled as, Ajay Kumar Thakur & others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 4.10.2024. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and a copy has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- be satisfied at this stage in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-1 of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Thakur’s case (supra). 3. The prayer being innocuous is not opposed. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 1695 of 2019, titled as, Ajay Kumar Thakur & others vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 4.10.2024. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioners in CWPOW No. 1695 of 2019, she shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in CWPOA No. 1695 of 2019. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 22nd September Judge (kck)