2025:HHC:45804 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 19150 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.12.2025 Aachman Riviera …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 3 and 4. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Notice. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appear and accept service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the case is covered by LPA No. 169 of 2025, titled as Union of India & Anr. vs. Atul Sharma & Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 16.07.2025. The relevant portion reads as under:- 2 2025:HHC:45804 “10. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant-Union of India could not in the first set of cases, denythe fact that the applications had been forwarded during currency of the Scheme and therefore, consideration had not been done. In such circumstances, he came to the conclusion that at least the consideration had to be made as per the terms of the policy dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-1). Thus, we cannot find any fault as such with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge to this extent. 11. Counsel for Union of India also admits that since each and every individual case will have to be considered within the parameters of the said policy, it would be appropriate that a decision making is done by the Empowered Committee by fixing a time frame as such. We are also of the considered opinion that the findings as such that the consideration was to be done by the Empowered Committee, thus cannot be faulted in any manner, once it is the case of the State also that they had forwarded their cases to the Empowered Committee. If that is so, then the decision making as such had to be done as per the parameters of the notification and as noticed above, has now been done in one case though, the rejection is here. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that present LPAs are liable to be disposed of in the above terms along with writ petitions that each and every individual case has to be considered afresh by the Empowered Committee. Let the said exercise be done within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that it will be open to the applicants, as such, to seek their remedy in accordance with law in case there is rejection of their case.” 3 2025:HHC:45804 3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of LPA No. 169 of 2025, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 23rd December, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)