IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3501 of 2022 Date of Decision: 08.01.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Sumitra Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vasu Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) Annexure P-3 dated March 2021/22.03.2021, may kindly be ordered to be modified and the petitioner, may kindly ordered to be regularized after completion of 8 years of service of School cadre Lecture in Hindi in Education Department w.e.f 1.1.2003, as the initial date of appointment of the petitioner is 28.11.1994 and she completes 8 years service on 28.11.2002. The said benefits may very kindly be ordered to be granted with all consequential benefits, coupled with seniority and continuity. (ii) That directions may be kindly issued to do the needful i.e. regularization after completion of 8 years of service, in view of annexure P-5, as has been done in the case of many similar situated School Cadre Lecturers. (iii) That the action on the part of the Respondents whereby the petitioner has been deprived of her due and admissible right is highly illegal, unjust and arbitrary and also violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of of the Constitution of India.” 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed in CWP No.1853 of 2009-D, titled as Arpana Bali Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others and in CWP No.238 of 2022, titled as Joginder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Arpana Bali and Joginder Singh (supra) as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition 2 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Arpana Bali and Joginder Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 08, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3