2025:HHC:4250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1189 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Raksha Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and 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 following main relief: “a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of Writ of Mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of Junior Basic Teacher pursuant to office order dated 11.08.2011 on regular basis for all intents and purpose alongwith all consequential benefits and further this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the appointment letter, issued to the petitioner on contract basis.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-7 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider her case in light of judgment 2025:HHC:4250 2 dated 19.12.2022, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5090 of 2022, titled Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the judgment passed in Umesh Jaswal (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed in Umesh Jaswal (supra). 2025:HHC:4250 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed in Umesh Jaswal (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge