IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11758 of 2024 Decided on: 09.12.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Bhuneshwari Devi ....Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General,for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vijay K Arora, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocates, for respondent No.4. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though respondents No.1 to 3 have not filed reply, however with consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “i). Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ Order or direction, directing the Respondents department (Respondent No.3) to consider the case 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - of the petitioner for grant of work charge status/regularization after completion of nine years of daily wage service i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.1999 with all consequential benefits. ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ Order or direction, directing Respondents department to re-fix the pay of the petitioner and release the entire arrear in favour of the petitioner- along with 12% interest. iii) In alternatively Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondents department to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of regularization of her junior i.e. Lalita Sharma, Suman Dutta, Jai Devi, Tota Ram etc. with all consequential benefits and re- fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and eligible benefits may also be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner within time bound manner along with 12% interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner and the reliefs claimed by her are covered in terms of judgment rendered in Ramesh Chand Tangrik Vs. H.P.State Forest Corporation and Others2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without 2 CWPOA No. 7434 of 2019, decided 22.07.2024 - 3 - examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision in the case of Ramesh Chand Tangrik2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 9, 2025 R.Atal