IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.260 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 6th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.260 of 2025 Meena Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.270 of 2025 Lalit Mohan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.272 of 2025 Seema Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.273 of 2025 Rajesh Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CWP No.275 of 2025 Ajay Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6. CWP No.276 of 2025 Surjit Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.277 of 2025 Vanita Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage. 3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.260 of 2025 read as under:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioner from her initial appointment on contract basis till their regularization for the purpose of seniority, increments, pensionery benefits and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad v/s State of H.P., CWPOA No.1745/2020 titled as Chaman Lal & Others v/s State of H.P and recently in CWP No.5290/2023 titled as Arun Kumar v/s State of H.P. in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their appointment to the date of realization.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-3, for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the 2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023 4 respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh