IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1537 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anuradha ……...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. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That the appropriate writ orders or directions may be issued to the respondents for treating initial appointment of petitioner dated 28.11.2008 as C&V teacher (Shastri) on batch wise as regular for all intents and purposes such as pay, increments, seniority and all other consequential benefits in terms of judgment dated 2-5-2012 passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010-I titled as om Prakash v/s State of HP and also judgment dated 8-10-2012 passed in CWP No. 3144/2011-Dtitles as Anju v/s State & others, CWP No.3143/2011-D decided on 7-11-2012 titled as Manju v/s state and others, which on attaining finality stands implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting 2 attention of this Court to Annexure P-5 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 02.05.2012, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.7602 of 2010-I, titled Om Parkash 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-5) 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 sought to be relied upon, passed in Om Parkash (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents 3 to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed in Om Parkash (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed in Om Parkash (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 he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 07, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge