2025:HHC:7097 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3941 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Dr. Monika Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in a nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis as qualifying service for the purpose of annual increments and other retiral benefits under Central Civil Services Pension Rules 1972, in view of the law laid down in Sheela Devi case supra and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, CWP 2411/2019 titled as Jagdish Chand and LPA 338/2024 titled as Naarayan Dutt Sharma versus State of H.P. and others.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWP No. 2411 of 2019 titled as Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-4), this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority 2 concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3