IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16114 of 2025 Decided on: 14th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pratibha Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, 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 matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That act of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer after completion of two years of contract service (as on 31-3-2024) may kindly be held unconstitutional, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified, unwarranted, invalid, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2110/2019 titled as “Rajinder Kumar-Versus-HRTC and another” vide judgment dated 22-10-2019. (ii) That the respondents/respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer w.e.f. 26-6-2024, the date, services of similarly situated 142 employees, even juniors to the petitioner, were ordered to be regularized vide order dated 26-6-2024 (Annexure-P/2), alongwith all consequential benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her are squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Rajinder Kumar Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation (Annexure P-4) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with respondent No.2/competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 2 CWP No.2110 of 2019, decided on 22.10.2019 3 petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above decision in Rajinder Kumar2 within a period of eight weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 14, 2025 Judge Mukesh