IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1751 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Pushpanjli …….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. R.L. Chaudhary, 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, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner as TGT (Hindi) in all respect and grant her, the pay scale of TGT and also to consider her cadre as State Cadre from the due date in light of the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2171/2023, titled as Hem Raj & others v/s State of H.P. (Annexure P-4)” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned 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 her pending representation dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2171 of 2023 titled as Hem Raj 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 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 20.11.2024 (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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hem Raj case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought 3 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 13, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)