IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11192 of 2025 Decided on: 11th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meena Kumari and others …..Petitioners Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Aashima Premy, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned Standing Counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing Respondent Corporation regularize services of the father of petitioner from his initial date of appointment and treat petitioner as appointee on regular appointee with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 b) That or in the alternative, the respondent Corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner immediately after completion of one year contractual service, by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, with further direction to release all consequential benefits in view of judgment by this Hon’ble Court in case CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 titled as Vikram Singh and others versus HRTC in favour of petitioner.” 3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners have already been adjudicated in Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation2. Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content if the respective cases of the petitioners are considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. 2 CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 09.11.2023. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh