IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1471 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Seema Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i). Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to condonation of 55 days break period and provide the grant in aid of the break period as per the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in Narian Singh case in CWP(T) No.5253 of 2008, titled as Narian Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment passed in CWP No.4670 of 2015 titled as Raj Kumar Pathania vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 13.12.2021; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to strictly implement the policy decision dated 11.05.2018 and judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in CWP No.342 of 2021 to give contract period 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 from 2015 to 2018 and then regularize the services of the petitioner from due date or w.e.f. the date of his juniors/contract teachers have regularized i.e. 01.04.2018 alongwith all the consequential benefits for all intent and purposes; (iii) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners accordingly and to calculate and pay arrears of salary consequent upon regularization of service from due date alongwith seniority etc. in service.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case she is permitted to file representation with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.4670 of 2015, titled as Raj Kumar Pathania vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents states that representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Pathania case(supra), there appears to be no impediment in accepting the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of one week before the competent authority for redressal of her grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by 3 the competent authority within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. 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 speaking order thereupon, taking note of the mandate contained in the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Pathania case (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 06,2025 (shankar)