Disposed

Tota Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022CWP/3194/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writs to declare a departmental order treating his joining as afresh as non-existing and for permanent absorption with arrears. Court disposed of petition by directing respondents to decide the case in light of a coordinate bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's case and decide it in light of judgment dated 11.5.2015 in Lala Sharma's case within six months.

Tota Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3194 of 2019

¶3

Date of Decision: 15.12.2022

¶4

____________ ___________________________________________ Sh. Tota Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh.& others … Respondents

¶5

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional Advocate Generals, for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatta, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶8

___________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶10

following main relief:-

¶11

“(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus for other appropriate writ order or directions declaring the acts and conducts of the respondents in terms of office order dated 26.04.2011(Annexure P) treating the petitioner joining as Clerk in the education department as “afresh and that too w.e.f. the actual date from which the petitioner gives his joining”, as non-nest and such order be quashed for all intents and purposes.

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondents to permanently absorb the petitioner as clerk in the education department in the pay scale of Rs. 3120- 5160/- revised to Rs. 591020200 w.e.f.19.3.2001 plus Rs. 1900/- grade pay, including benefit of seniority, for all intents and purposes in terms of award dated 5.8.2005 in reference No.70/2022 (Tota Ram) Vs. MD Forest Corporation), which has attained finality up to the Hon’ble Apex Court in CWP No.3127 of 2012 (Lalita Sharma vs. Secretary Education) dated 11.5.2015.

¶15

(iii) Issue writ of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondent-department to pay the differential amount of salary to the petitioner w.e.f.19.11.2007 to 7.10.2010 with interest @9% p.a. within time bound manner.

¶16

(iv) That accordingly the respondents department may kindly be directed to reaffix the pay, allowance, increments of the petitioner and other service benefits and pay the arrear in favour of the petitioner alongwith 12% interest.”

¶17

2. Though, reply on behalf of respondent No.3 is on record,

¶18

but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 11.05.2015, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3127 of 2012, titled Smt.

¶19

¶20

Lalita Sharma versus The Secretary(Education) and others,

¶21

submits that the issue raised in the instant petition stands duly answered in the aforesaid judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bond manner. Learned counsel representing respondentCorporation is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶22

3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3127 of 2012 and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

¶23

4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition

¶24

is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 11.5.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Lalita Sharma’s case(supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks

¶25

¶26

and in case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the case of Lalita Sharma , same benefit shall be granted to him. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶27

15^th December,2022 (shankar)

¶28

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Tota Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tota Ram v. State of Hp and Others

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

Leela Devi Vs State of Hp

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Maya Devi and Others

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Hp

Balwant Singh Vs Chaman Sharma

Suresh Kumar Verma Vs State

Seema Devi Vs Anoop Kumar and Others