IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17683 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Prem Dassi and Others …….Petitioners Versus Union of India and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1/UOI. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 5/State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 12.08.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.12981 of 2025, titled Bimla Devi Vs. Union of India and Others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, fairly state that they are not 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and representation, if any, filed by the petitioners 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-3) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by this Court in Bimla Devi case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)