IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19337 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Kala Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Legal Aid Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 27.6.2025 in CWP No. 6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-8) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. 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 Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. While - 2 - accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by 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 this Court in Bimla Devi (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-8) in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge