Disposed

Anuradha Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Dec 2022CWP/7978/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought contractual appointment and regularization benefits as a teacher. The Single Judge avoided deciding merits and permitted her to submit a representation, directing the State to decide within eight weeks, then disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission to make a representation to the Director Elementary Education; direction to decide within eight weeks; writ petition disposed on so far as it went.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7978 of 2021 Date of decision: 05.12.2022

¶2

Smt. Anuradha Sharma		….Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.		….Respondents

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sabina, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?¹

¶5

For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Sabina, Judge(Oral):

¶6

Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 226 of

¶7

the Constitution of India seeking following substantive relief:-

¶8

“That the respondents may be ordered to give contractual appointment to the petitioner from the date from which the others have been given in the year 2018 with all the benefits incidental thereof.”

¶9

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Punjabi Teacher on period-wise basis in they year 2010. In the

¶10

year 2018, the Government of Himachal Pradesh took a decision

¶11

¶12

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?

¶13

¶14

to convert the period based Punjabi and Urdu Teachers into contractual appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case of the petitioner would be squarely covered by the judgment dated 20^th October, 2021 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.2045 of 2019 (Smt. Abida Parveen and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others) .

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2-the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh and if directions are issued to decide the same in a time bound manner.

¶16

4. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter, we dispose of the petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2. If such a representation is made within two weeks from today, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 after considering the judgment referred to above within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶17

5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶18

terms.

¶19

¶20

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶21

disposed of.

¶22

( Sabina ) Judge

¶23

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶24

December 05, 2022 (reena)

Anuradha Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp

Karam Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dev Raj Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajesh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Suraj Prakash Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Basant Ram and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.