2025:HHC:8029 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4519 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shanti 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: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to consider and decide case of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 07.08.2023, passed in SLP (Civil) No.10399 of 2020, case titled as “Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. and Ors.” and judgment dated 18.07.2022, passed in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, case titled as “Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.” in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:8029 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file representation within one week to the respondents, who in turn shall consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Sheela Devi’s and Balo Devi’s cases (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 27, 2025 (Rupsi)