2025:HHC:6253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1809 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Yashoda Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Shourya Sharma, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of the petitioners rendered on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, pension, annual increments and career progression scheme along with all other consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment on contract basis in the interest of Justice. (ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department to count the service of the petitioner rendered in contract basis for the purpose of earned leave from the date of initial appointment on the contract basis in the interest of Justice. (iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the representation (Annexure P-III) in a time bound manner.” 2. 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. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. 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. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2