IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 11209 of 2024 Decided on 28.07.2025 Vasudha ......petitioner Versus State of H.P & Others ...respondents Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.11209 of 2024 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Application stands disposed of. CWP No. 11209 of 2024 Even though no reply has been filed, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? 2 (a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of Junior Basic Teacher pursuant to office order dated 06.01.2011 on regular basis for all intents and purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and further this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word ‘contract’ from the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner. (b) This Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent State to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as they are entitled as a regular employee in the establishment of respondents alongwith 18% interest w.e.f. Petitioner’s date of appointment with all consequential benefits including counting the period for the purpose of seniority etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-5), which has still not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied, in case, she will be permitted to submit fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, pointing out therein the decisions upon which she is relying for grant of reliefs from the respondents/competent authority and the same be directed to be decided by the respondents/competent authority in a time- bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Deputy Advocate General. 4. Taking into consideration the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law within a further period 3 of six weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 28, 2025 Judge Ankit