IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16098/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 17.09.2026 1. CWP No. 16098/2026 Kanchan Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 16125/2026 Roni …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents 3. CWP No. 16103/2026 Anushri Handa …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents 4. CWP No. 16184/2026 Sunita Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents 5. CWP No. 16097/2026 Anuradha …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.. .…Respondents 2 6. CWP No. 16096/2026 Meenu Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Mr. Tek Chand and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioners in the respective petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General in all the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. 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, respondents/competent authority are 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing 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 judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 17th September, 2026(rohit)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16098/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 17.09.2026 1. CWP No. 16098/2026 Kanchan Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 16125/2026 Roni …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents 3. CWP No. 16103/2026 Anushri Handa …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents 4. CWP No. 16184/2026 Sunita Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents 5. CWP No. 16097/2026 Anuradha …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors.. .…Respondents 2 6. CWP No. 16096/2026 Meenu Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chandel, Mr. Tek Chand and Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioners in the respective petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General in all the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective representation(s) annexed with these writ petitions, seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. 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, respondents/competent authority are 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing 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 judgment, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 17th September, 2026(rohit)