IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16240 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 10th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16240 of 2024 Sonia Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16244 of 2024 Pawan Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16246 of 2024 Kuldeep Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16272 of 2024 Manju Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.16280 of 2024 Khemlata Chaudhary and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legal issue involved in these cases has already been adjudicated upon; Petitioners have filed representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-4, for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions to respondent No.2, but till date the same have not been adjudicated upon; Petitioners would be satisfied in case competent authority is directed to decide the representations in accordance with law within a time bound schedule. The above is not objected to by learned Additional Advocate General. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 3. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh