IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11885 of 2024 Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vikramjeet and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ 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, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.54 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. and Others Vs. Om Prakash, decided on 04.10.2019, along with connected matter, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on behalf of the petitioners and case of the petitioners shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. 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 October 29, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)