IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1743 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Daljit Kaur and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, 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, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant due and admissible benefit of Earned leave with all monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment. II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the consequential arrear along with interest @ 9% per annum from due date to till the date of realization.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representation dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022, titled as Sunita Sangroli 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners 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 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioners 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunita Sangroli case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands 3 adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 13, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)