IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8975 of 2024 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Bal Krishan and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioners, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioners while referring to the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3280 of 2022, titled as Surinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 20.09.2024, along with connected matters, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore case. He states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of Surinder Kumar case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order taking note of judgment, as detailed hereinabove and in case petitioners are found similar situate to the petitioners in afore case, then they shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 31, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)