1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13034 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.08.2025 Himani Rana. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan & Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The case set up by the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Junior Basic Training Teacher (‘JBT’) on a contract basis in the respondent-Education Department on 18.02.2014. Two other candidates were also appointed along with the petitioner. The two other candidates were permitted to join as JBTs on a contract basis, but in the petitioner’s case, appointment was delayed on the projected ground that the petitioner’s BPL certificate was under cloud. The petitioner joined as a JBT on 22.05.2014. The other two JBTs, who were appointed along with the petitioner under the order dated 18.02.2014, were permitted to join their -2- duties and their services were regularized in March 2017, whereas, in petitioner’s case, taking her date of joining as 22.05.2014, the respondents regularized her services w.e.f. 29.11.2017. With the grievance that the petitioner’s services ought to have been regularized w.e.f. 31.03.2017, i.e. the date on which the other two JBTs appointed along with her were regularized, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Sapna Kumari & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Anr.1. Prima facie, it appears that the grievance raised herein is similar to the one involved in Sapna Kumari¹. This, however, is an aspect to be considered by the respondents. Relevant portion from the decision reads as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to office memorandum dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure P- 1), whereunder dearness relief to Himachal Pradesh Government Pensioner/Family Pensioners was revised w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Reliance was also placed upon office memorandum dated 07.03.2020, issued by the Department of Finance Government of Himachal Pradesh, further revising the dearness relief of Himachal Pradesh Government Pensioners/ Family Pensioners w.e.f. 01.07.2019. 5. It is not in dispute that office memorandums dated 07.02.2015 and 07.03.2020 have been adopted by the respondent/Corporation and dearness relief in terms of these office memorandums is admissible to the petitioner, but the same has not been released to her.” 1 CWP No.2602 of 2023 decided on 22.07.2025. -3- It seems from the record that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the respondents, enclosed as Annexure P-4, though the date of the representation is not decipherable from the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/Competent Authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of the law laid down in Sapna Kumari¹ within a fixed time schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Sapna Kumari1 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. -4- The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13th August, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)