IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15994 of 2026 Decided on: 15th September, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vimla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2, Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 2

others3 and Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4. It is seen from the record that though the petitioner has preferred a representation (Annexure P-6) to the respondents for the redressal of her grievances, however, the aforesaid representation does not seek redressal of all the reliefs, which the petitioner has primarily claimed in this writ petition. 3. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2026 Judge Mukesh 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15994 of 2026 Decided on: 15th September, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Vimla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2, Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 2

others3 and Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others4. It is seen from the record that though the petitioner has preferred a representation (Annexure P-6) to the respondents for the redressal of her grievances, however, the aforesaid representation does not seek redressal of all the reliefs, which the petitioner has primarily claimed in this writ petition. 3. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2026 Judge Mukesh 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 4 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023