IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15489/2026 Decided on: 09.09.2026 Santosh Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring her 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2025 2 representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th September, 2026(rohit)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15489/2026 Decided on: 09.09.2026 Santosh Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring her 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided on 07.04.2025 2 representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 09th September, 2026(rohit)