Smt. Sunita Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7127 of 2023 Date of Decision: 03.10.2023 .

_______________________________________________________ Smt. Sunita Devi .......Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, 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, for the respondents-State.

Mr. Chitranjan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority in terms of judgment dated 6.11.2020 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3544 of 2019, titled State of H.P. and others vs. Surendera Sharma and others, in a time bound manner.

Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition .

already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, she 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 petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 03, 2023 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 03/10/2023 20:38:25 :::CIS