Disposed

Gurnam Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2022CWP/5860/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking service counting for increments and pay fixation without going into merits. The Court permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Director of Elementary Education for redressal within four weeks, to be decided within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make representation to Respondent No. 2 within four weeks for redressal; Respondent No. 2 to decide within six weeks.

Gurnam Singh Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 5860 of 2020 Decided on: 9.12.2022 Gurnam Singh .…Petitioner.

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & Ors. ……Respondent

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua , Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶10

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

¶11

reliefs:-

¶12

“(I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner as JBT for the purpose of annual increments right from 12.6.1991 alongwith consequential benefits.

¶13

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pay of the petitioner as Shastri (OT) on the basis of revised pay of the petitioner as JBT alongwith all consequential benefits.”

¶14

Reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner on the strength

¶15

of a judgment passed by this Court in CWP(T) No.7712/2008 ( Paras

¶16

Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another) decided on

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

19.05.2009. The respondents stand in the reply is that the said judgment is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content, in case he is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education H.P. for the redressal of his grievance raised in this writ petition and respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representation, to be made by him, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Additional Advocate General.

¶21

In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2 in respect of his grievance raised in this writ petition within a period of four weeks from today. If such representation is made, the same shall be decided expeditiously and in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

09^th December 2022. (Rohit)

¶23

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge

Gurnam Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurnam Singh 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

Parshotam Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Krishan Kumar Vs Hrtc and Others

Bidhi Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Soni Kumar Vs State of Hp

Govind Rana @ Abbu Vs State of Hp

Akhil Sood Vs State of Hp