IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.15355 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Samina Khan ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J . (Oral) Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents/State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to treat the petitioner as contractual Urdu Language Teacher from her initial date of appointment i.e. 11.02.2011 in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2007, dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure P-2) with all consequential benefits. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to regularise the services of the petitioner as per regularisation policy dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure P-6) from the due date i.e. year 2017 with all consequential benefits. (iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant seniority to the petitioner on contract 2 teacher from the initial date of her engagement in the department i.e. 2011 and the said seniority may kindly be counted for the sake of increment, retiral benefits and pension etc.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that case of the petitioner and relief claimed for by her has already been adjudicated in Asha Sharma and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others1, Taj Mohammad and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Others2, Om Parkash Vs. State of H.P. and Others3, Priya Guleria and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others4, Abida Parveen and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has preferred representation for redressal of her grievance on 15.09.2024 through respondent No.2 (Annexure P-13), however, such representation has not been decided till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation (Annexure P-13) in light of aforesaid decisions within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 1CWP No.654 of 2024, decided on 22.08.2024. 2CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided on 03.08.2023, along with connected matter. 3CWP No.7602 of 2010-I, decided on 02.05.2012, along with connected matters. 4CWP No.10729 of 2023, decided on 03.01.2024. 5CWP No.2045 of 2019, decided on 20.10.2021. 3 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P- 13) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above decisions within a period of six 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. October 30, 2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Rajeev Raturi Judge