IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 15851 of 2026 and connected matters Decided on: 14.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15851 of 2026 Ritu Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15852 of 2026 Malaro Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.15855 of 2026 Sapna Sharma and Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.15857 of 2026 Meena Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.15862 of 2026 Lal Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.15865 of 2026 Piar Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents 2 7. CWP No.15866 of 2026 Asha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.15869 of 2026 Nisha Devi & Ors …..Petitioners Versus

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.15870 of 2026 Ranbir Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh K Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 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 Deputy 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 decisions, 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 September 14, 2026 Judge R.Atal 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 15851 of 2026 and connected matters Decided on: 14.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15851 of 2026 Ritu Bala …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.15852 of 2026 Malaro Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.15855 of 2026 Sapna Sharma and Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.15857 of 2026 Meena Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.15862 of 2026 Lal Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.15865 of 2026 Piar Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents 2 7. CWP No.15866 of 2026 Asha Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.15869 of 2026 Nisha Devi & Ors …..Petitioners Versus

State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.15870 of 2026 Ranbir Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh K Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions. 2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 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 Deputy 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 decisions, 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 September 14, 2026 Judge R.Atal 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024