CWP/19830/2026 on 5 November 2026

1. CWP No.19772 of 2026 Devinder Kumar and others

…..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and another

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

2. CWP No.19799 of 2026 Sanju Ram

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

3. CWP No.19813 of 2026 Rajinder Kumar

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

4. CWP No.19830 of 2026 Meena Kumari

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others

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

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: M/s R.L. Chaudhary, Bhupinder Thakur, Surender K. Sharma and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocates, in the respective petitions.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations (annexed with the respective writ petitions) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. 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

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

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.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 05, 2026

Judge Mukesh