IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19215 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Jayanti Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i. That the writ in the nature of Mandamus may very kindly be issued, to the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner to be deemed appointed on regular basis with effect from her initial date of appointment, notwithstanding that her appointment was initially made on contract basis at a time when no such provision existed under the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of 1987 then force. ii. That the Petitioner may kindly be given the leave and other service benefits as is being given to the regular appointed Trained Graduate Teachers(TGTs)(Arts). The petitioner may also be held entitled for all the allowances which are being paid to the regular Trained Graduate Teachers(TGTs) and the respondents may be directed to pay the same alongwith interest to the Petitioner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 7602 of 2010 titled as Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. alongwith connected matters as well as instructions dated 23.8.2025 issued by the Director of School Education (Annexure P-7), states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Om Parkash (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Om Parkash and instructions dated 23.8.2025 (Annexure P-7) (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered 3 accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 05,2025 (shankar)