Disposed

Naresh Kumar v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Aug 2017LPA/368/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh modified a Single Judge's judgment regarding regularization of the appellant. Due to a State notification separating the draftsman cadre, the court upheld the appellant's regularization against the post of draftsman and dismissed pending applications while modifying the implementation of benefits granted to another petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The Single Judge's judgment is modified to maintain the appellant's regularization orders against the post of draftsman.

Naresh Kumar Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

L.P.A. No. 368 of 2011

¶4

Date of decision: 9^th August, 2017

¶5

Naresh Kumar Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents

¶6

______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge

¶9

Whether approved for reporting¹ :

¶10

For the appellant : S/Shri Ramakant Sharma and Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocates.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶12

Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Deven Khanna, counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶13

¶14

Per Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶15

There is no dispute that with the issuance of Notification, dated 28^th January, 2015 (Annexure MA-3, page 112 of the paper book), cadres of draftsmen, working in various Municipalities in the State of Himachal Pradesh, have been separated and they are no longer in the State cadre. Since the appellant, namely Naresh Kumar, is working as draftsman at Municipal Council, Kotkhai, he would not be affected in case judgment, dated 15^th July, 2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Single Judge of this Court

¶16

1 Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?

¶17

¶18

in CWP(T) No. 897 of 2008, titled Kamal Kant Vs. State of H.P. and others, is implemented in its letter and spirit, whereby the State has been directed to consider case of the writ petitioner, namely Kamal Kant for promotion to the post of draftsman from the date he has completed 12 years service as Assistant Draftsman with all consequential benefits.

¶19

Learned counsel representing appellant Naresh Kumar fairly states that in view of said notification, issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby cadre of draftsmen in various Municipalities, has been separated, no prejudice would be caused to him in case benefit is granted to the writ petitioner, Kamal Kant, in terms of the judgment, passed by learned Single Judge.

¶20

In view of the above, judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that orders, dated 6^th March, 2002 and 4^th October, 2007, whereby appellant Naresh Kumar was regularized against the post of draftsman, shall remain in force.

¶21

Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶22

( Sanjay Karol ), Acting Chief Justice

Naresh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ms Shoghi Communication Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Ms Him Knit Feb

Ms Zee Laboratories Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Court on its own Motion Vs State of Hp

Yugal Kishore Marwaha Vs State of Hp

Chelsea Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp