Dismissed

Anita Kumari v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Aug 2022CWPOA/6606/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought salary arrears and reopening of a closed skill centre. Court noted merger of Gram Panchayat Banuri with Municipal Corporation, Palampur. Ordered Commissioner to consider petitioner's case on parity with other merged tailoring teachers within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to consider the petitioner's case on similar lines within six weeks.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

ON THE 4^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

¶6

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) No.6606 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

ANITA KUMARI WIFE OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TANDA, PO RAIPUR, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

1. STATE OF HP THROUGH SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF HP SHIMLA.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF HP SHIMLA.

¶14

3. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶15

4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHRUKHI BLOCK, PANCHRUKHI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶16

5. GRAM PANCHAYAT BANURI, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶17

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶18

….RESPONDENTS

¶19

(MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. NARENDER GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. SUNNY DHATWALIA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 TO 4).

¶20

¶21

MR. AJAY KUMAR CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-6)

¶22

_______________________________________________________________

¶23

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the

¶24

following :

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Municipal Corporation, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., is impleaded as party respondent No.6. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of the parties.

¶27

Notice. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondent No.6.

¶28

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following

¶29

main relief:-

¶30

“ That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the salary of the applicant since, July, 2018 to till today, with the rate of interest of 12% annual and others consequential benefits, if any, and further respondents may kindly be directed that, or the silaee centre of the Gram Panchayat Banuri Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra has been closed arbitrary, personal bias and without followed the proper procedure in accordance with law, the same may kindly be reopen in accordance with the resolution passed by the concerned Panchayat, since 2006 to till today as per Annexure A-4, for the interest of justice of public at large and for fair play.”

¶31

¶32

Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of the respondents save and except respondent No.5. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, it has been informed by learned counsel for the parties that Gram Panchayat Banuri, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., against whom, relief was claimed stands merged with Municipal Corporation, Palampur.

¶33

Learned counsel representing the petitioner while placing on record copy of certificate dated 16.11.2021, issued by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Palampur states that all the tailoring teachers, who were earlier working in 14 Panchayats, which were subsequently merged with Municipal Corporation, Palampur, have become employee of Municipal Corporation, Palampur. He states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the Municipal Corporation, Palampur to consider the case of the petitioner, who was also tailoring teacher employed with Gram Panchayat Banuri, Tehsil Palampur before its merger with Municipal Corporation, Palampur.

¶34

Mr. Ajay Chauhan, learned counsel representing respondent No.6-Municipal Corporation, Palampur fairly states that in case tailoring teachers working in other gram Panchayats, who have now become part of Municipal Corporation, Palampur have been allowed to work as an employee of Municipal Corporation, Palampur, case of the petitioner would also be considered on the similar line.

¶35

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing respondent No.6, present petition is disposed of

¶36

¶37

with a direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., to consider the case of the petitioner on similar line, as has been done in the case of other tailoring teachers in other 14 Panchayats, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶38

4^th August, 2022 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge

Anita Kumari v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Kumari 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

Damyanti Vs State of Hp

Sohan Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumari Vs State of Hp

Suresh Kumar Vs Jeevan Kumar and Anr.

Vikrant Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Gur Avtar Singh Vs State of Hp