2025:HHC:6694 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10597 of 2024 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Amita Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, proxy counsel, for Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Santosh Dogra, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the impugned action of the respondents in denying the petitioner the benefit of Grant-in-Aid, may kindly be declared Arbitrary and discriminatory. (ii) That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the grant-in-aid in favour of the petitioner w.e.f 29.8.2013 to 31.12.2017 along with interest @ 9% p.a.” 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed reply through respondent No. 2. Para 8 of the reply, which is relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, is reproduced herein below: 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “That the contents of para-8 of the petition are wrong hence denied as no injustice has been done to her by the Respondents. It is pertinent to mention here that Grant-in-aid has been released to only those PTA provided Assistant Professors in the year 2024 whose decisions received from the Hon'ble court in CWP No. 2218 of 2018-Sangeeta Devi and ors. Vs State of H.P. and ors. and connected matters decided in this analogy. Case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioners in CWP No. 2218 of 2018-Sangeeta Devi and ors. Vs State of H.P. and ors.” 4. As per afore para, grant-in-aid has been released to only those PTA provided Assistant Professors in the year 2024, whose decisions received from the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2218 of 2018 titled Sangeeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 5. It has been specifically averred in the reply that case of the petitioner is similar to the petitioner in CWP No. 2218 of 2018 titled Sangeeta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., if it is so, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Sangeeta Devi (supra) deserves to be allowed. 5. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the case of Sangeeta Devi (supra), he/she shall 3 be granted similar benefits as has been accorded to the petitioners in aforesaid case. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 19, 2025 (Sunil)