IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8023 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vandana Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though persons juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, but her services have not been regularized without any justifiable reason. 2. While making this Court peruse averments contained in the petitioner as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court is persuaded to agree with the submission of Mr. Mohit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that though petitioner 2 has already completed the requisite period for regularization from the date of appointment, but yet on one pretext or the other, her prayer for regularization has not been considered. 3. Before filing petition, petitioner, by way of filing representation (Annexure P-4) addressed to Director, Elementary Education Department, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, prayed for regularization as has been done in the case of her batch mates and juniors, but since needful was not done, she is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. 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 though he has every reason to believe and presume that by now representation (Annexure P-4) must have been decided, but if not, same shall be decided positively within a period of four weeks. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her 3 grievance (Annexure P-4), 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, preferably within a period of four 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 appropriate orders taking note of Regularization Policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge