Smt. Sunita Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15164 HP

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)