IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15181 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Tilkeshwari Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the respondent: 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 relief: “(i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to grant benefit of Earned Leave to the petitioner from the due date of regularization i.e. w.e.f 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2009, in view of the fact that the delay in regularization of service of the petitioner is clear cut fault on the part of the respondent department, thus she is entitled for grant of Earned Leave.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022 titled Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-3), 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 judgment passed by this Court in Sunita Sangroli (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 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 speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2