IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 6079 of 2011 Date of decision: August 4, 2011 Bramhi Devi Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate For the State : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to count the tenure services rendered by the husband of petitioner from the date of initial appointment till the issuance of regularization order, for the purpose of annual increment and all consequential benefits of pay fixation etc. and the period may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension benefits and thereafter pension of the petitioner be refixed with consequential benefits.” 2. The petitioner claims the benefit of regularization during the tenure period of service rendered by her and also the consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, the issue is 2 covered in her favour by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 rendered in CWP No. 4550 of 2010 titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General points out that the factual aspects are to be verified by the competent authority. Petitioner submits that she would file appropriate representation furnishing all factual details before the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is always open for her to do so. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to examine the matter and verify the facts in the light of the judgment referred to above and take appropriate action thereon within a period of four months from the date of the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition and the copy of the judgment referred to above by the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Justice Kurian Joseph ), Chief Justice August 4, 2011 (K) ( Justice Rajiv Sharma ), Judge