IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3665 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Gain Devi Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pushpinder Verma, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “ That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent department may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of retrospective appointment to the petitioner w.e.f.1.5.2003 in view of the law laid down in CWPOA No.3435 of 2020 titled as Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and CWP No.3734 of 2021 titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.” 2. Before the reply could be received from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 judgment dated 27.11.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.3435 of 2020, titled Satish Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner expeditiously in light of aforesaid judgment. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that pending representation, if any, shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. Having perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are issued to the 3 respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation(Annexure P-4) of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar case(supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 detailed 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. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18, 2025 (shankar)