IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.41 of 2026 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Hirda Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 26.07.2022 and judgment dated 18.07.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, in time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, are not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex 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 judgments. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) in light of Baldev and Balo Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, 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 speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)