IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10327 of 2025 Decided on: 28.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Madhu Bala ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Manget and Mr.Rajendera Gulati , Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Susheel Gautam, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to Regularize the contractual services of the Petitioner on the post of Social extension Officer (SEO) in-the Department of Forest (i.e. Respondent No.1 to 3) after completion of Six Years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 15.06.2013 in terms of the regularization policy framed by the respondent department with all consequential benefits. b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with12% Interest. c) Or in Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner from the initial date of his appointment Or after completion of Two years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief prayed for and the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon in Kamal Dev Vs. State - 3 - of HP and Ors2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to respondent /Competent Authority for the redressal of her grievances, whereafter, respondent /Competent Authority be directed to consider his representation within a time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents no objection for the same. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent /Competent Authority within two week, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law, keeping in view decision rendered in Kamal Dev2 and the decisions mentioned therein, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 28, 2025 R.Atal 2 CWP No. 3642 of 2024, decided on 08.04.2025