IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6616 of 2024 Decided on:26.11.2025 Neeta Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma and Mr. Ranbir Rathore, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits on the principle of equality as they are appointed on commission basis under same requisition of seats as per un-amended Rules. B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes 2 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization. C. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the same and similar benefits as has been extended to Ms. Rakhi (LT), Mr.Tej Ram (LT) & Mr., Kuldip Chand (TGT, now Lecturer) who were recruited under 37.5% batch wise quota under the same requisition.” 3. Petitioners grievance is that their representations of different dates (Annexure P-6, colly.) seeking applicability of Om Parkash versus State of Himachal Pradesh,2 Manju Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3 and Anju Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners of different dates (Annexure P-6, colly.) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Om Parkash2, 2CWP No.7602 of 2010, decided on 02.05.2012, alongwith connected matters. 3CWP No. 3143 of 2011, decided on 07.11.2012. 4 CWP No. 3144 of 2011, decided on 08.10.2012. 3 Manju Devi3 and Anju Devi4 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 26th November, 2025(yogesh)