IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.946 of 2024 Decided on: 11th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Rinkle Khoond, Advocate vice Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from her initial date of appointment instead of contract basis, in view of the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in LPA No.54/2013, LPA No.500/2013, CWP No.414/2014, CWP No.416/2014 and CWP No.417/2017. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus, may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to release all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of her initial appointment till date of realization.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in State of H.P. and others Versus Om Prakash2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case she is permitted to prefer a comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in 2 LPA No.54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 3 accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Om Prakash2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh