IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15261 of 2024 Date of Decision: 12.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Pooja Marwah ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(a) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner properly on the post of Lecturer taking into account the initial start of Rs. 16290/- as per Regularization Order (P-1), Recruitment and Promotion Rules (P-2) and the Notification issued by the respondents themselves annexed as Annexure P-3. The pay may be properly fixed from the due date December, 2014. (b) That the petitioner may be held entitled to all consequential benefits and arrears on account of above.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 28.05.2025 passed by Principal Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2489 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Chand Heer & others along with connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this Court in Suresh Chand Heer (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Suresh Chand Heer (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. August 12, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2