IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13597 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Shilpa Bhatia ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. That impugned office order dated 19.08.2025 Annexure P-5, may kindly be quashed and set aside by further directing the respondent No.3 to extend her maternity leave of 86 days, illegally lapsed by the respondent No.3 and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to on leave till 16.11.2025. b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of maternity leave from 23.02.2025 to 17.05.2025 and further adjust those leaves from 23.08.2025 onwards till its completion.” 2 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.393 of 2022, titled as Kamini Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause vis-à-vis judgment dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court in Kamini Sharma (supra), this Court finds that case of the petitioner is identical to the aforesaid case decided by this Court. Vide aforesaid judgment, this Court has already dealt with all the points raised in the instant petition and as such, respondents can be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that only 86 days’ maternity leave remains to be availed of by the 3 petitioner and therefore, respondents be directed to avail the remaining portion of maternity leave. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General states that the maternity leave, if admissible to the petitioner, as per Kamini Sharma (supra) shall be granted to the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, while considering the case of the petitioner in terms of Kamini Sharma (supra), respondents shall allow the petitioner to avail of the remaining maternity leave. September 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge