2025:HHC:9258 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13921 of 2024 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Lata Azad ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No. 5903 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the documents intended to be placed on record through instant application are ordered to be taken on record. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.13921 of 2024 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the services of the petitioner rendered on contract basis w.e.f. 15.05.2006 till 19.08.2013 for the purpose of seniority, annual increments and all other consequential benefits arising therefrom in terms of the 'judgment passed by this Hon'ble Apex court in Direct Recruit as well as by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004/2017.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2