IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15681 of 2025 Date of Decision: 6.11.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Seema Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: (a) Directions may be issued to the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner on contract basis as class IV employees from the date of taking over of the college, i.e. 7th February, 204, with all consequential benefits of pay and seniority, etc. (b) That the office order dated 20th June 2017, by which the petitioner was given fresh appointments purely on daily wage basis may be quashed and set aside. (c) That the petitioner has to be given all the consequential benefits including seniority, arrears, if any, etc.” 2. Learned Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to order dated 27.12.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 10004 of 2024, titled as Seema - 2 - Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, states that instant petition is not maintainable for the reason that direction already stands issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, wherein similar relief as has been prayed for in the instant petition, already stands prayed for. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, especially relief clause vis-à-vis order dated 27.12.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema Devi, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings i.e. execution petition, in the competent court of law. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, representation, if not already decided in terms of Seema Devi, shall be decided expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. All pending applications stand disposed of. November 6, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge