IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2936 of 2025 Decided on: 4th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uma Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of her initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits on the principle of equality as she got appointment after following complete recruitment process by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board Hamirpur as per un-amended Rules. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 II. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their initial appointment to till the date of realization.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in State of H.P. and others Versus Om Prakash2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Om 2 LPA No.54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 3 Prakash2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 04, 2025 Judge Mukesh