CWP/19739/2026 on 4 November 2026

1. CWP No.19631 of 2026 Sangeeta Kumari

…..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CWP No.19644 of 2026 Renu Devi

…..Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CWP No.19662 of 2026 Vinay Chauhan and Ors

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. CWP No.19664 of 2026 Sunita Kumari and Anr

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. CWP No.19667 of 2026 Dharminder Singh and Ors

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. CWP No.19668 of 2026 Hansa Devi and Anr

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. CWP No.19675 of 2026 Hukam Singh and anr

…..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and Ors

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. CWP No.19739 of 2026 Sanjay Kumar and Anr

…..Petitioners

Versus State of H.P. and Anr

.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: M/s Munish Kumar, Tek Chand,

Bhupinder Thakur and Yogesh K

Chandel, Advocates petitions.

For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions.

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025.

directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above decision, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 4, 2026

Judge R.Atal