IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8308 of 2008. Decided on: 30 th November, 2010. Ms. Mukta Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ __ For the petitioner. : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral) : Mr. Kush Sharma, learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that his client stands regularized. However, he has confined the relief only to the benefit of counting of contract service rendered by the petitioner followed by regularization for the purpose of annual increments. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Uma Dutt Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 1268. 2. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the release of annual increments by counting the contract period followed by regularization, within a period of eight weeks after the production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority for the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. redressal of her grievance, as far as seniority is concerned. The competent authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 30, 2010. (bhupender)