IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.78 of 2025 alongwith CWP No.256 of 2025 Decided on: 4th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.78 of 2025 Rehnuma Thapa …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.256 of 2025 Bhavna Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP No.78 of 2025 read as under:- “I. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action of the Respondents, whereby the regularization of the petitioner has been delayed unnecessarily and has been regularized on 25-04-2022 instead from 11-11-2021 being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. II. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of Annexure P-4 to the petitioner by re-fixing the pay of the petitioner @ Rs.41600/- on completion of two years of regular service of petitioner alongwith all consequential benefits from due date in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners and the issues raised by them in the writ petitions are squarely covered in terms of the recent decision rendered in Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide their respective cases for redressal of the grievances raised in the writ petitions in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. 2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024 3 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, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the respective cases of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh