2025:HHC:9249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2947 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Basanti Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. P.P.Chauhan & Ms. Shikha Rajta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(a) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to treat the petitioners as having been appointed in the year 2002 with all consequential benefits for all purposes and intents; (b) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6850 of 2020 titled as Milat Ram & Ors. VS. State of Himachal Pradesh, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Milat Ram (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of her grievance as has been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3