CWP/19566/2026 on 3 November 2026

1. CWP No.19451 of 2026 Hitender Kumar

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

2. CWP No.19474 of 2026 Shalu

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

3. CWP No.19480 of 2026 Kanta Devi

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

4. CWP No.19565 of 2026 Gandhari Devi

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

5. CWP No.19566 of 2026 Om Parkash

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

6. CWP No.19592 of 2026 Sonia Mahajan and others

…..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Chandel, Advocate, in CWP No.19451 of 2026.

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate, in all the matters except CWP No.19451 of 2026.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respective writ petitions) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 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 directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional 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 judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 03, 2026

Judge Mukesh