Dismissed

Desh Raj v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2022CWPOA/1996/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking direction to the respondents not to terminate petitioner's services as a teacher was disposed of on merits, as the court found the petitioner was not actually working at the material time and had failed to make complete disclosure.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of. No relief was granted to the petitioner as he was not working and had not made complete disclosure.

Desh Raj Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 10^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 (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No. 1996 of 2020

¶9

Between: DESH RAJ, S/O SH. BASI RAM, R/O VILLAGE MANDO, POST OFFICE SERKAO, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTT. CHAMBA, H.P. PRESENTLY SERVING AS PGT HINDI AT GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOBIA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTT. CHAMBA, HIMACHAL PRADESH ...PETITIONER (BY AVINASH JARYAL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH SECRETARY

¶12

¶13

HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE GOVT. OF H.P. 2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHIMLA-1. 3. PRINCIPAL GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOBIA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTT. CHAMBA, H.P. 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BHARMOUR/CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE BHARMOUR, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. 5. MEMBER SECRETARY SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL CHOBIA, TEHSIL BHARMOUR, DISTT. CHAMBA, H.P. ...RESPONDENTS (MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR. ADARSH K. SHARMA, ADDITONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1 TO 4)

¶14

This Civil Writ Petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the following:

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This writ petition has been registered on transfer

¶18

from the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal where it was filed as Original Application.

¶19

A prayer has been made by the petitioner that respondents be directed not to terminate his services and he may be allowed to continue to work as SMC Teacher (PGT Hindi) in Government Senior Secondary School Chobia. The Original Application before the Tribunal was filed on 23^rd April, 2017. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 1^st May, 2017 in the terms that the respondents shall not terminate the services of the petitioner as PGT (Hindi) in Government Senior Secondary School Chobia, District Chamba.

¶20

In reply to the petition, the respondents have stated that the petitioner had earlier also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 5494 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 14^th July, 2016 with a direction to the respondents to decide

¶21

the representation of the petitioner. The representation was considered and rejected vide order dated 28^th October, 2016 on the

¶22

¶23

ground that he does not possess the essential qualification as per the R&P Rules.

¶24

When the matter was listed before the Court on the last date of hearing, the learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to verify whether the petitioner is still working or not. Today, Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of communication dated 9^th March, 2022 received from Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, submits that the petitioner is not working in Government Senior Secondary School Chobia, District Chamba, and that now a regular Hindi Lecturer, namely Sh. Suresh Kumar, is working in the said school.

¶25

Moreover, in the petition itself, the petitioner has mentioned in para 6 (III) that he was allowed to serve up to December, 2016, but, now he is not being allowed to mark his attendance since March, 2017 on the opening of new session. Meaning thereby, he was not actually working when he approached the Tribunal. Thus, complete disclosure was not made by him.

¶26

¶27

In that view of the matter, no relief possibly can be

¶28

granted to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

( Mohammad Rafiq )

¶30

Chief Justice

¶31

( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )

¶32

Judge

¶33

March 10, 2022

¶34

( rajni )

Desh Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desh Raj v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajani Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Saksham Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Punjab Singh Vs Hrtc and Anr.

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