IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19933 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sapna 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: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. 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 notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made - 2 - on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgment 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Om Prakash case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge