IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18725 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gian Chand & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before notice, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment dated 7th October, 2023 passed by this Court in CWP No.6807 of 2020, titled as Devi Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while appearing on behalf of respondents fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 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 by 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 three 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 10,2025 (shankar)