Disposed

Joginder Paul v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Mar 2022CWP/1029/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a civil writ petition regarding employment benefits. It directed Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's case in light of the averments and the judgment in Arpana Bali, requiring a decision within four weeks with consequential action within two weeks if the petitioner is similarly situated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to decide the case within four weeks in light of Arpana Bali judgment.

Joginder Paul Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶5

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1029 of 2022

¶9

Between:-

¶10

JOGINDER PAUL, SON OF LATE SH. GURBAKASH RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE PANJOA LADOLI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA, H.P. PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SALETI, TEHSIL RAKKAR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶11

…..PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SH. C.N. SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶15

2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶16

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION, KANGRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶17

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH SH. NAND LAL THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶20

This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Notice. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional

¶23

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

¶24

behalf of the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in CWP No. 1853 of 2009-D , titled as Arpana Bali vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 10th April, 2013 and the said judgment, in turn, stands implemented by the respondents. This is a matter, which is required to be considered by the employer.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of the averments made in this petition and, more particularly, the judgment rendered in Arpana Bali’s case, which stands implemented. Needful be done within four

¶27

¶28

weeks and in case the petitioner is similarly situated to Arpana Bali’s case, then consequential action be taken within two weeks.

¶29

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

¶30

terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶31

( Mohammad Rafiq ) Chief Justice

¶32

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ) Judge

¶33

March 11, 2022 (rohit/vs)

Joginder Paul v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Paul v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Mehta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Baby Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gramin Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan Vs State of Hp through Pr.Secretary

Rajni Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pratima Kumari Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp