IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7463 of 2022 Date of Decision: 12.9.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ranjna Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the Grant-in-Aid on PTA basis to the petitioner w.e.f. 30-05-2008 in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court as per Annexure P-3 (Colly) in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Drawing Master at GMS Thansari where the post of Drawing Master is still lying vacant in the interest of justice and fair play and further directed to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as per Annexure P-4 i.e. letter dated 10-10-2022.” - 2 - 2. While referring to reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since it has been fairly admitted at the behest of the respondents that case of the petitioner is covered by judgment dated 7.8.2015 passed in CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled Hem Raj Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (Annexure P-3), petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having carefully perused para 10 of the reply, learned Additional Advocate General states that he is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. Para 10 of the reply, reads as under: “10. That in reply to the contents of this para it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the relied upon judgments for Grant in Aid. So far, the re-engagement of the petitioner is concerned, that claim is not tenable as the petitioner has left the job at her own will and her services were never terminated by the respondent state. Moreover, she was re-engaged on 23.4.2013 by the SMC of the concerned school on SMC basis as Drawing Master though there was no provision to engage Drawing Master on SMC basis in those Middle Schools where strength is less than one hundred. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for re-engagement. The action of the respondent state is just and proper and there is no violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as alleged in this para.” - 3 - 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. September 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge