1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4304 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Ranju Mehta. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. D.S Kaith, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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:- “A. That the writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the respondent department to regularize the petitioner as per the prevalent contract policy for regularization with due date i.e. March, 2015 after the completion of 7-years of contractual service as per the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court i.e. Annexure P- 7 and Annexure P-12. B. The respondent may kindly be directed to remove anomaly in pay scale of the petitioner and the respondent may kindly be directed to provide the pay scale as provided to similar incumbents who are posted in District Sirmour and District Chamba. C. That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant the arears of previous salary which was not given at par -2- with other similar situated person along with up-to-date interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her has already been considered & adjudicated upon in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Nishant Sharma & Ors.1 and Anita Parihar & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that representation dated 19.01.2025 (Annexure P-13) preferred by the petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into 1LPA No.66 of 2022 decided on 25.04.2024 along with connected matters. 2 CWP No.5890 of 2010-F on 09.10.2012. -3- consideration the above judgments in the case of Nishant Sharma1 and Anita Parihar2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)