IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11108 of 2024 Decided on: 18th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neeru Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Pradeep K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a. That the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 not taking the services of the petitioner in spite of the judgment passed in favour of the petitioner holding him entitled for grant-in-aid may kindly be declared arbitrary, unconstitutional and discriminatory and the same may kindly be set-aside. b. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 for taking over the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2012 as per office letter dated 20.07.2011 alongwith all consequential 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 benefits including payment of salary at par with their counterparts teaching in the respondent department w.e.f. 01.04.2012.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that factual matrix of the instant case, the issues involved and the reliefs prayed herein, have already been adjudicated upon in Renuka Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Ors.2. The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. Learned counsel further submits that the directions issued in Renuka Sharma2 be, therefore, issued in the instant petition as well. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly acknowledges and admits the above position. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with the order that observations and findings recorded in Renuka Sharma2 shall be applicable to the case of the present petitioner as well. The direction issued therein shall mutatis mutandis be applied to the case of the petitioner. In terms of the said decision, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to take over the services of the petitioner in accordance with the policy dated 20.07.2011 with all consequential benefits. 2 CWP No.11260 of 2024, decided on 24.07.2025 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh