IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1879 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Nisha Singla …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Proxy Counsel vice Mr. Pranav Kaushal, 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:- “ That this Hon’ble Court may be pleaded to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis, prior to her regularization for the purpose of annual increments as well as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS(Pension) Rules,1972.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case here pending representation dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi versus State of H.P. 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 Chand, learned Deputy Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation 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 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six 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 this Court in Sheela Devi’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be 3 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 19,2025 (shankar)