IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8335 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Ms. Shikha Rajta and Ms. Ayushi Sharma, Advocates. 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. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP(Civil) No.18830 of 2021, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents, fairly state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)