IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 297 of 2024 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Kalmi 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: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 27.11.2018 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2742 of 2018, titled The Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) HP and others vs. Smt. Neelam Sharma, and as such, she would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation of the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 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 representation dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of judgment (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 08, 2025 (shankar)