IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15110 of 2025 Decided on: 18th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neelam Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is wife of late Sh. Luder Mani. Her case is that her husband was appointed as Physical Education Teacher on 26.05.2006 at GSSS Ghat, District Mandi under the Grant-in-Aid Policy, 2006. He had 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 completed three years of continuous service as on 31.03.2018, therefore, was entitled for regularization w.e.f. 01.04.2018 at par with other PTA appointed contract teachers in view of policy circulated by the respondent- State. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondent- Department instead of regularizing her husband’s services from the due date, regularized his services w.e.f. 05.08.2020. Her husband is stated to have died in harness on 21.06.2021. 4. Petitioner seeks applicability of Yashwant Singh and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another2 in favour of her late husband for regularization of his services w.e.f. 01.04.2018. It is, however, seen from the record that the petitioner has not preferred any representation for the redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition. 5. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a 2 CWP No.342 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.08.2022 3 period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed 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 September 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh