IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9088 of 2022 Decided on: 5th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manisha Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.29251 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No.9088 of 2022 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued to the Respondents for taking over the 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 services of the Petitioner as Trainer I.T. in the Respondent Department in view of the Policy/ Notification, dated 03.10.2015, in the interest of justice. ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as per policy adopted by the State Government (Annexure A-6) alongwith all consequential benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her have already been adjudicated upon in Manoj Kumar Sharma & others Versus State of H.P. & others2 and Nitin Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to examine her case in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are 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 respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate 2 CWPOA No.6612 of 2019, decided on 17.09.2025 3 CWP No.4971 of 2024, decided alongwith connected matters on 23.09.2025 3 order, 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. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 05, 2025 Judge Mukesh