2025:HHC:3707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.177 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gomti Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to release the benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 2274/2021 with all consequential benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 along with connected petitions titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s case (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. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, which is duly supported with an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi (supra) and there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 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 the respondents to consider and decide the 2 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 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. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situate to the case of Satya Devi, she shall be granted similar benefits. February 27, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3