IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 18142/2025 Decided on:24.11.2025 Rachna Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & another .…Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhry, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter has been heard at this stage. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus to consider the petitioner as having been appointed against the post of Junior Office Assistant (Library) pursuant to office order dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure P-1) on regular basis for all intents and purposes, and further this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the word ‘contract’ from 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 the said appointment order issued to the petitioner on contract basis. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent- Stay to pay to the petitioner all the emoluments and benefits as are admissible to a regular employee, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the petitioner’s initial date of appointment i.e. 08.07.2021, with all consequential benefits including countin gof the said period for purposes of seniority, pay fixation, pensionary benefits, and other service advantages.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner, issue raised by petitioner and reliefs claimed herein have already been adjudicated in Nitin Thakur versus State of H.P and others2 which was disposed of with following operative directions:- “89. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, present petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners on the post they were offered engagement in the Department of Horticulture after completion of two years contractual service in terms of regularization policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” Learned counsel further submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondents/Competent Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by 2CWP No. 4971 of 2024, decided on 23.09.2025 a/w connected matters. 3 directing the respondents No. 1 & 2/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Nitin Thakur2, by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 24th November, 2025 (yogesh)