IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19139 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gulwant Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondent to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents, fairly state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)