IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9075 of 2024 with CWP Nos.7925, 8631, 9223, 9875, 10179, 10509 of 2023, CWP Nos.5121, 5911, 6167, 8451, 8453, 8455, 8457, 8459, 8829, 9077 and 9821 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 9075 of 2024 Mahesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 2. CWP No. 7925 of 2023 Satya Pal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 3. CWP No. 8631 of 2023 Dila Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 4. CWP No. 9223 of 2023 Mohan Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 5. CWP No. 9875 of 2023 Roop Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 6. CWP No. 10179 of 2023 Maan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 2 7. CWP No. 10509 of 2023 Madan Lal Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 8. CWP No. 5121 of 2024 Shyama Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 9. CWP No. 5911 of 2024 Nanak Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 10. CWP No. 6167 of 2024 Kashmir Chand Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 11. CWP No. 8451 of 2024 Jens Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 12. CWP No. 8453 of 2024 Kehar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 13. CWP No. 8455 of 2024 Shamsher Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 14. CWP No. 8457 of 2024 Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 3 15. CWP No. 8459 of 2024 Mahender Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ 16. CWP No. 8829 of 2024 Bihari Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 17. CWP No. 9077 of 2024 Sant Lal …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents 18. CWP No. 9821 of 2024 Shiv Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since common questions of law and facts are involved in above captioned cases and similar reliefs have been prayed for, this Court, after clubbing all the cases together, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 4 heard them jointly and are being disposed of vide the common judgment. 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8987 of 2024, titled Manmohan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, they would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the cases of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks in light of Manmohan case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, 5 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 19,2025 (shankar)