IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3942 of 2025 Decided on: 22nd March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Meera Kumari ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma and Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Addtional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner as Staff Nurse as per un-amended 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Rules with effect from the date of her initial engagement/appointment with all consequential & financial benefits. Il. Issue a writ of 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 in term of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP/ 7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs State of H.P & Others, and connected matters Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner with effect from the date of her initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits in term of the judgment passed in T.A. No. 4478 of 2018 titled as "Parvati Sharma and others versus-State of H.P. and Another" AND in term of the judgment passed in CWP No.3038 of 2022 er tiled as Nisha Kumari & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. III. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest 9% per annum from the date of her initial appointment to till the date of realization...” 3. According to the petitioner, the legal issue involved in the case has already been adjudicated upon. The grievance of the petitioner is that her representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) has still not been decided by the respondents/Competent Authority. Learned counsel for the - 3 - petitioner submits that apart from the judgments mentioned by the petitioner in her aforesaid representation, the matter is also covered by the decision rendered in State of H.P. and others 3 Versus Om Prakash2 . 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. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-10) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Om Prakash2 as also the judgments mentioned in the representation, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 LPA No. 54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on04.10.2019 - 4 - The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 22, 2025 R.Atal