Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16669 (HP)

SHALINI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/9538/2025 · 2025-06-16

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9538 of 2025 Decided on: 16th June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Shalini …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors …..Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Tanuj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief: - A). That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents directing them to consider the services of the petitioner for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 with all consequential benefits i.e. pay fixation, arrears of salary, seniority and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - pensionary benefits etc. forthwith in terms of the judgment dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 342 of 2021; titled as Yashwant Singh & others Vs. State of H.P. & others. and in compliance of office order dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) in the interest of justice..” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 16, 2025 R.Atal