2025:HHC:5068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1679 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kaushalya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, proxy counsel for Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) To quash the office order dated 17-12-2024 i.e. Annexure P-1 issued by the respondent No. 3. (ii) To reengage the petitioner as Beldar in the office of The Assistant Engineer Jal Shakti Sub-Division Taklech, Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. from where the petitioner has prematurely been retired w.e.f. 31-12-2024. (iii) That to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner for the period w.e.f. 31-12-2024 till the date of reengagement in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein claim of the petitioner has been refuted. 2025:HHC:5068 2 3. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned proxy counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-3, states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider her case in light of judgment dated 28.05.2024, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 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 the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks, in light of judgment passed in 2025:HHC:5068 3 Satya Devi (supra). Ordered 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 order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 06, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge