2025:HHC:4273 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.15961 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Sonika ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a) That Respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Commerce) from the initial date of taking over the erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. i.e. with effect from 08-06-2016 along with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of salary, seniority along with 9% interest per annum. b) That notification dated 27-08-2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of taking over of the services of the petitioner on contract basis instead of regular basis with further direction to the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the date of taking over of erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. by considering past service 2025:HHC:4273 2 rendered by the petitioner along with all consequential benefits with 9% interest per annum.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 14.09.2023, passed in CWPOA No.2050 of 2020, titled Naveen Nischal Sood and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid case and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents for consideration of her case in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that representation, if any filed by the petitioner, shall be decided in terms of aforesaid judgment, if applicable. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Naveen Nischal Sood 2025:HHC:4273 3 (supra) and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed in Naveen Nischal Sood (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge