IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 14005 of 2008. Decided on: 24.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Seema Kumari … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Virender Verma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). Mr. Himmat Negi, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty reserved to his client to make a representation in view of letter dated 23rd June, 2006. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2, within a period of three weeks from today on the basis of letter dated 23rd 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - June, 2006 (Annexure A-6) for the redressal of her grievance. Respondent No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks after receipt of the representation. It is made clear that in case the representation made by the petitioner is decided in her favour, she shall be accommodated in or around the place from where her services were terminated. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. Dasti copy on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 24, 2011. (sck).