IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9648 of 2024 Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vandna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. J.P. Sharma, 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. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “1) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions thereby directing the respondents for counting the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increment and other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner i.e. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 1.12.2014, including qualifying service for pensionary benefits like a benefit under CAS as per the “judgment dated 24.11.2023, passed in CWP 2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammed and ors. versus State of H.P. and ors. and judgment dated 24-11-23 passed in CWPOA 3282/2019. 2) Further direction may be passed to respondents to pay due and admissible arrear to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% alongwith other consequential benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 3 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh