IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19309 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Sandhya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.12.2019, passed in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10399 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Sheela Devi along with connected matters, and judgment dated 7.10.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 10783 of 2024, titled as Lalit Sen v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider - 2 - and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 3. 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 direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-9) in light of Sheela Devi and Lalit Sen (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge