IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3172 of 2023 Date of decision: 24.03.2025 Narvada Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a). That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the salary w.e.f 01.04.2022 to 15.09.2022 to the petitioner along with interest, cost and litigation expenses. b). That the respondents may be directed not to give any break in the service record of the petitioner and her service may be directed to be continued from 01.04.2022 till date. c). That the respondents may also be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are:- (i) to direct the respondents to release her salary w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 15.09.2022; and (ii) to direct the respondents not to give 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- her break and continue her services w.e.f. 01.04.2022 till date. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 06.09.2024 from the Director, Elementary Education. As per these instructions, services of the petitioner were disengaged on 01.04.2022. Petitioner was re-engaged as Cook-cum-Helper at Government Senior Secondary School, Bhutti, Sub-Tehsil Kotgarh, District Shimla, on 15.09.2022. The petitioner was not in service w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 14.09.2022, hence, she was not paid honourarium for this period, as she has not worked for the said period. She has been paid prescribed honourarium after 15.09.2022, when she was re-engaged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above factual assertions of the respondents that petitioner had not worked for the period for which she now claims honourarium. His contention, however, is that petitioner’s disengagement w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 14.09.2022 was illegal. However, no specific relief has been prayed for in the writ petition for declaring the discontinuation of -3- petitioner’s service, w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 14.09.2022, as illegal. Hence, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of her grievances in accordance with law. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 21st March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)