IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1821 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yamini Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Ms. Santosh Dogra, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to count the service rendered by petitioner on contract basis as Shastri (OT) from 06.01.2015 to 23.05.2018 for seniority, annual increments, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03.08.2023 tilted Shri. Taj Mohammed and others in the interest of justice and fair play. ” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-3 ) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-3 ) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of 3 this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 19,2025 (shankar)