IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13690/2024 Decided on: 02.04.2025 Shilpa Dhiman …Petitioner Versus UOI & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Sr. Advocate as DSGI with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) A writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing Annexure P-7. (ii) That a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to continue as a clerk at ECHS Polyclinic, Shahpur. Till she attains the age of superannuation or is replaced by a regular incumbent.” 2. The gist of petitioner’s case and the issues involved were noticed in the following order passed on 26.11.2024, whereby interim relief was granted to the petitioner:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 “Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner is presently serving as Clerk at ECHS Polyclinic Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P., where she had joined on 01.08.2019. Her grievance is to Annexure P-8, whereby, respondents have issued employment notice for filling up certain posts at ECHS Polyclinic Shahpur, District Kangra on contract basis for a period of one year/renewable for further period of one year. Post of Clerk held by the petitioner is also part of aforesaid employment notice. Interviews in terms of the employment notice are scheduled for 27.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that similar issue, as is involved in the instant petition, is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 36359 of 2016; That various similar matters have been disposed of by this Court by directing that such petitions would abide by the decision of SLP(C) No. 36359 of 2016; That in most of such matters, there is interim protection in favour of the similarly situated petitioners. 4. In view of above, respondents shall maintain status quo qua petitioner and the respondents shall not proceed ahead in filling up the post held by the petitioner under employment notice Annexure P-8, till further orders. Reply be filed within two weeks. List on 12.12.2024.” 3. The respondents have filed their reply. Facts pleaded by the petitioner have not been disputed. It is an admitted position that petitioner was manning the post in question on contractual basis, when the said post was advertised by the respondents afresh to be filled up again on contractual basis. Respondents have also not disputed that the issue involved in the instant petition, is pending 3 before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition(C) No. 36359/2016 (Sonu Kumar Vs UOI), wherein interim protection has been granted in favour of the petitioner therein, who was similarly situated to the present petitioner. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that petitioner’s continuation on the post in question shall abide by the result of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 02nd April, 2025(rohit)