IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6210 of 2024 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vijeta Dharputa …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurav Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A) That a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to strictly implement, Annexure P-3, dated 11.5.2018 and grant regularization of services of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2018 along with all consequential benefits. B) An appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and calculate and pay arrears of salary along with interest.” 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner and the issues raised by her in the writ petition are squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Yashwant Singh and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another2. Learned vice counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide her case for redressal of the grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Yashwant Singh2, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 CWP No.342 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.08.2022 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh