IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4919 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mansa 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. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “(i). That appropriate writ/order may kindly be issued with the direction to the respondent grant the regularization after completion of 10 years of service i.e. 05.08.2007 and the period may kindly be counted for pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits with all consequential benefits accrued in the favour of the petitioner; (ii) That the case of the petitioner may kindly be considered for regularization in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court titled as Sanjay Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh as well as Kanta Devi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 27.05.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.6929 of 2020, titled Smt. Kanta Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Kanta Devi’s case (supra) and in case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the case of Kanta Devi, she shall also 3 be given similar benefits. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 04, 2025 (shankar)