IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5731 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Seema Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocates. 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 State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of TGT (Arts) pursuant to office order dated 07-09- 2021 on regular basis for all intents and purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner on contract basis. b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner all the emoluments as they are entitled a regular employee in the establishment of respondents alongwith with 18% interest w.e.f. Petitioner's date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc.” 2. Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-4) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5278 of 2022, titled as Gafoor Mohammad Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 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 pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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 pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, 3 preferably within a period of six weeks. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gafoor Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 10, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)