IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3436 of 2025 Decided on: 12th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sapna Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma and Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. 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 the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioner as Staff Nurse as per un-amended Rules with effect from the date of her initial engagement/appointment with all consequential & financial benefits. II. 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 in term of the judgment passed 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 by this Hon'ble Court in CWP 7602/2010, titled as Om Parkash Vs State of H.P & Others, and connected matters. III. 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 terms of the judgment passed in T.A. No.4478 of 2015 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 titled as Nisha Kumari & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. IV 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 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 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. 2 LPA No.54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 3 Learned Additional Advocate General 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 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh