IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8241 of 2022 Date of Decision: 3.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashi Sood and Anr. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “a. That office memorandum dated 06-07-2020 (Annexure P-9) and consequential letter (Annexure P-8 Colly) may be quashed and set aside. b. That respondent may kindly be directed to credit the earned leaves in the leave account of the petitioners, admissible to them due to petitioners, admissible to them due to retrospective regularization of their services. c.That all earned /privileged leaves which have not been availed by the petitioner when she served the department after 06-02- 2007, may be counted as earned leave, as part of consequential benefits, strictly in accordance with the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court and same be credited in leave account of - 2 - petitioners and thereafter same may be paid to them or earned leaves may be enchased in favor of petitioners.” 2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein claim of the petitioners has been refuted on various grounds, however before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, petitioners by way of CMP No. 2538 of 2025 have sought permission to place on record copy of judgment dated 8.8.2023, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5043 of 2022, titled Sunita Sangroli v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., to state that case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case necessary directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide of the petitioners in light of Sunita Sangroli (supra). 4. After having perused aforesaid judgment passed in Sunita Sangroli (supra), Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate - 3 - General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with liberty to the petitioners to file representation within two weeks, thereby praying for consideration of their case in light of Sunita Sangroli’s case (supra), which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within 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 petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 3, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge