2025:HHC:4099 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2863 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Naveen Kumari ……...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. Surinder Saklani, 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears seniority etc. in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Nitin Kumar’s case (Annexure P-5). b) That the respondent be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure P-4 in time bound manner.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to Annexure P-4 states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider her case in light of judgment dated 22.08.2022, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2025:HHC:4099 2 CWPOA No.1077 of 2019, titled Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) 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. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the judgment sought to be relied upon, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Kumar (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the party, if direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Kumar (supra). 2025:HHC:4099 3 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Kumar (supra). 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 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge