ANJANA KUMARI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/1039/2026 · 2026-01-09
Sandeep Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5529 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5529 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1039 of 2026
Date of Decision: 9.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Anjana Kumari and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Naveen Pathania, Mr. K.S. Gill and Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their representations are considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters. 2
While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
- 2 - 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 the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-5 Colly.) in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 9, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (manjit)
Judge