IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16031 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Meera Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a) A Writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to respondents No.1 to 3 directing them to restore the dearness allowance on family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. December, 2018 alongwith arrears from the date when the allowance was stopped; b) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 20.09.2025 within a time bound period. c) That the judgment be passed in favour of the petitioner since the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 6/12.2023 passed in LPA no. 197 of 2023 titled as Shakuntala Devi Vs. State of H.P.” 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 6.12.2023 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 197 of 2023 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 titled as Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that in terms of judgment (supra), prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be considered. He states that representation filed by the petitioner shall be decided in time bound manner, if not already decided. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by the learned Additional Advocate General coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court and in that regard, representation has been already filed by the petitioner, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.09.2025, expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 13,2025 (shankar)