IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1644 of 2024 Date of decision: 12.03.2025 Deepa Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed the reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief(s): - “(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 Petitioners has been delayed unnecessarily and has been regularized on and w.e.f. 19.01.2022 instead from 28.12.2021 being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.2021 i.e. from the date the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Regularization Policy was liberalized or any date prior to 03.01.2022, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 keeping in view the fact that the Petitioners have completed four years of daily wage service in the month of December, 2020 and September 2021 i.e. prior to 30.09.2021 as per the Regularization policy dated 28.12.2021 or in alternate the petitioner be accorded the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 as approved by the Cabinet on 14.10.2022 (Annexure P-8), and the same has been implemented in case of JBT's (Annexure P-9).” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved and the relief prayed for by the petitioners has already been adjudicated in Mohit Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Others1. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content if the case of the petitioners is considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment within a time- bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 1CWP No. 1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024. -3- six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 12th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)