IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.15240 & 15258 of 2026 Decided on: 03.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15240 of 2026 Jyoti …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15258 of 2026 Priti Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Surender Verma and Mr. Hitesh Bali, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 in all the writ petitions. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

3. 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 and Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.3 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. 4. 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 decisions, within a period of six weeks from 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025. 3 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 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 September 3, 2026 Judge R.Atal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.15240 & 15258 of 2026 Decided on: 03.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15240 of 2026 Jyoti …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15258 of 2026 Priti Gupta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Surender Verma and Mr. Hitesh Bali, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with 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 in all the writ petitions. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

3. 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 and Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.3 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. 4. 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 decisions, within a period of six weeks from 2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025. 3 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 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 September 3, 2026 Judge R.Atal