( 2026:HHC:31918 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Ex. Pet. No.489 of 2026 Decided on: 31st July, 2026 Rameshwari Chauhan ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The respondents have filed the compliance affidavit and also placed on record the copy of order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. This Court while disposing of CWP No.2598 of 2022, titled, Vivek Mehta and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Anr., (wherein the name of petitioner was at Serial No.177) had only given direction to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of four weeks to respondent No. 2, who shall, in turn, consider and decide the same. Respondent No.2 has decided the representation, hence, the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:31918 ) 2 mandate contained in the judgment stands fully complied with. However, the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2, is at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 3. The execution petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )

31st July, 2026 Judge (naveen)

( 2026:HHC:31918 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Ex. Pet. No.489 of 2026 Decided on: 31st July, 2026 Rameshwari Chauhan ....Petitioner versus State of H.P. and anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The respondents have filed the compliance affidavit and also placed on record the copy of order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. This Court while disposing of CWP No.2598 of 2022, titled, Vivek Mehta and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and Anr., (wherein the name of petitioner was at Serial No.177) had only given direction to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of four weeks to respondent No. 2, who shall, in turn, consider and decide the same. Respondent No.2 has decided the representation, hence, the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:31918 ) 2 mandate contained in the judgment stands fully complied with. However, the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2, is at liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 3. The execution petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )

31st July, 2026 Judge (naveen)