IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.437 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Chuni Lal 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. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. 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, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 585 of 2024 titled as “Prem Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, decided on 27.11.2025 and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representation (Annexure P-6) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional - 2 - Advocate General, fairly states that representations filed by the petitioners, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Prem Lal (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-6) in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, they 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. January 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge