IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 9225 of 2008. Decided on: 07.12.2010. __________________________________________________________ Kamla Devi. … 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 : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby she has not been permitted to join her duties in sequel to Annexure A-1, dated 20th December, 2002. The present lis is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Phool Maya versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of one month after the production of certified copy of the judgment. She 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 07, 2010. (sck).