IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1624/2022 Decided on: 16.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parmila Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “That the writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to extent the benefits of regularization immediately after completion of the 10 years contract service of the petitioner i.e. from the date of initial appointment on 19.08.1998, in view of the law laid down in the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court and further kindly be directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from 20.08.2008 after completing 10 years of service alongwith all consequential benefits i.e. the seniority and other monitory benefits as extended in CWP No. 4489/2018 titled as Harnam Singh Banshtu Vs. State of H.P.” 2. Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner and reliefs claimed for by her have already been adjudicated in Harnam Singh Banshtu & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. Having regard to above submissions but without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 16th September, 2026 rohit 2 O.A. No. 4489/2018 decided on 01.08.2018