IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1711 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Poonam ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis prior to their regularization for the purpose of seniority, Pay fixation, promotion, annual increments, Pension etc. along with all consequential benefits. (ii) That respondents may further be directed to extend the benefits of judgments mentioned in para 11 (Annexure P-3) to petitioner as well being similarly situated to the petitioner of these judgments and their services rendered on contract basis may be taken into consideration toward seniority, pay fixation, increments Promotion etc.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. March 13, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2