IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4275 of 2024 Date of Decision: 30.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sanno Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Kanta Devi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents- State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioner rendered on contract basis from 20.12.1997 to till date of regularization i.e. 20.12.2002 for the purpose of annual increments, pensionary benefits and other consequential/financial benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2075 of 2020 along with CWPOA Nos. 2639 and 2772 of 2020. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to release the pension of the petitioner in her favour as per the Old Pension Scheme i.e. Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.” 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 judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2075 of 2020 titled as Santosh Kumari Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumari (supra) and 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 judgment in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Santosh Kumari (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant 3 order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. P (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 30, 2025 (Sunil)