Rama Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rama Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) in light of Surya Prabha (CWP No.5390 of 2024) and Ranjit Singh (CWP No.2500 of 2021), expeditiously preferably within four weeks; similar benefits to be extended if petitioner is found similarly situated; opportunity of hearing and speaking order mandated; pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) in light of the coordinate-bench judgments in Surya Prabha (CWP No.5390 of 2024) and Ranjit Singh (CWP No.2500 of 2021), and extend similar benefits to her if she is found similarly situated.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Surya Prabha (CWP No.5390 of 2024) and Ranjit Singh (CWP No.2500 of 2021), and no prejudice would be caused to either party if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of those judgments; hence no fresh adjudication is undertaken.

Ratio / Principle

Present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-6) in light of Surya Prabha and Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from today.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, she would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶9
The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orally disposed writ petition (CWP No.21163 of 2025, decided 05.01.2026, Sandeep Sharma, Judge): before notices were issued, learned counsel for the petitioner Rama Devi prayed that the respondents be directed to consider and decide her representation (Annexure P-6) in light of coordinate-bench judgments — Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No.5390 of 2024, decided 28.05.2025) and Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others (CWP No.2500 of 2021, decided 07.07.2023). The Additional Advocate General raised no objection. Finding the issue already adjudicated in those judgments, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to decide the representation in light thereof expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, to extend similar benefits to the petitioner if she is found similarly situated, to afford her an opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.21163 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026

____________________________________________________________ Rama Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in CWP No.5390 of 2024, titled as Surya Prabha & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , decided on 28.05.2025 and judgment dated 07.07.2023, passed in CWP No.2500 of 2021, titled as Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others , in time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and as such,

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments.

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) in light of Surya Prabha and Ranjit Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)