IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16364 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 21st September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16364 of 2026 Shashi Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.16370 of 2026 Payal and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16376 of 2026 Ishwar Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.16389 of 2026 Rekha Rani …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.16393 of 2026 Ram Lok …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. CWP No.16399 of 2026 Sonika Koundal and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate, in CWP Nos.16364, 16370, 16376, 16393 and 16399 of 2026. Mr. Sanjeev K. Motta, Advocate, in CWP No.16389 of 2026. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respective writ petitions) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025 3 counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 21, 2026 Judge Mukesh