IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19233 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Vipan Kumar and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that their 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another, passed in CWP No.3280 of 2022, decided on 20.09.2024, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 the Coordinate Bench of 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 December 18, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)