2025:HHC:3882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2713 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.02.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chhabilu Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr. Balwinder Singh and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to make representation to the respondents for redressal of her grievance in terms of judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, with the direction to the respondent to decide the same in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:3882 that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and fair stand taken by learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks, praying therein for consideration of her case in light of judgment passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi’s case(supra), which in turn, shall be decided by the respondents 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge February 28, 2025 (shankar)