Dismissed

Sunita Devi v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Jul 2023CWP/4369/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismisses multiple public interest litigations challenging an amendment to the Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020. The court held the restriction on 'family' to mean only land donors and their immediate families in the Concession Share Certificate context was valid, referencing settled precedent.

What did the court decide?

None. Petitions dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.;

Sunita Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

	CWP No. 4269 of 2022 a/w connected matters. Reserved on: 07.07.2023 Decided on: 14.07.2023
___________________________ 1.CWP No. 4269 of 2022	_______________________________
Jyoti Devi	...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
2.CWP No. 8180 of 2021
Harsh Kumar	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
3.CWP No. 3951 of 2022
Asha Devi	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
4.CWP No. 3954 of 2022
Santoshi	...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
5.CWP No. 3958 of 2022
Kaushalya Kumari	...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
6.CWP No. 3963 of 2022
Sunil Dutt	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
7.CWP No. 3979 of 2022
Seema Devi	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
8.CWP No. 3996 of 2022
Shivani	...Petitioner

¶3

¶4

State of H.P. and others	Versus	…Respondents
9.CWP No. 3998 of 2022
Nina	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others 10.CWP No. 4105 of 2022		…Respondents
Atma Ram	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
11.CWP No. 4187 of 2022
Varsha Kumari	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
12.CWP No. 4279 of 2022
Chamna Devi	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others 13.CWP No. 4281 of 2022		…Respondents
Ashok Kumar	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
14.CWP No. 4282 of 2022
Pariksha	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
15.CWP No. 4360 of 2022
Saif Ali		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
16.CWP No. 4368 of 2022
Surinder Singh	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
17.CWP No. 4369 of 2022
Sunita Devi	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others 18.CWP No. 4406 of 2022		…Respondents

¶5

¶6

Meenakshi Kumari State of H.P. and others 19.CWP No. 4407 of 2022	Versus	...Petitioner …Respondents
Promila		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others 20.CWP No. 4445 of 2022		…Respondents
Vikash Sharma	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
21.CWP No. 4697 of 2022
Sanjay Kumar	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
22.CWP No. 4955 of 2022
Ajay Kumar	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
23.CWP No. 4957 of 2022
Bodh Raj	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
24.CWP No. 5042 of 2022
Chaman	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
25.CWP No. 5593 of 2022
Anita Devi	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
26.CWP No. 5595 of 2022
Pushap Raj	Versus	...Petitioner
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents
27.CWP No. 5954 of 2022
Seema Devi		...Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		…Respondents

¶7

¶8

28. CWP No. 6373 of 2022

¶9

Usha Devi	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
29.CWP No. 6527 of 2022
Beli Ram	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
30.CWP No. 7190 of 2022
Naro Devi	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
31.CWP No. 7191 of 2022
Vikas Kumar	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
32.CWP No. 7192 of 2022
Liyakat Ali	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
33.CWP No. 9086 of 2022
Geeta Devi	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
34.CWP No. 660 of 2023
Neelam Kaur	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
35.CWP No. 2456 of 2023
Mukesh Kumar and other	s ...Petitioners Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
36.CWP No. 3216 of 2023
Santosh Kumari	...Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and others	…Respondents
____________________________ Coram	___________________________
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ta	rlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sa	tyen Vaidya, Judge

¶10

¶11

1 Whether approved for reporting? No

¶12

________________________ For the petitioner(s)	_______________________________________ : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Mr. H. S. Rana, Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Mr.Atul Kumar, Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Mr.Anil Kumar Manget, Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr.Shubham Sood, Mr. Sat Prakash, Mr. Suresh Saini, Mr. Varun Chauhan, Mr. Hitesh Thakur, Mr. Atharv Sharma, Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Mr. Prashant Sharma, Mr. H. S. Rangra, Mr. Goldy Kumar and Mr.Varun Rana, Advocates, for the respective petitioner(s).
For the respondents:	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate Generals, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for the respondents/State.
	Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. Nimish Gupta, Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Mr. H.S. Rana & Mr. A.S. Rana, Mr. Yashveer Singh Rathore and Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the respective respondents.

________________________
For the petitioner(s)

_______________________________________
: Mr.
Sanjeev
Kumar
Suri,
Mr.
Sandeep K. Pandey, Mr. Servedaman
Rathore, Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Mr. H.
S. Rana, Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal,
Mr.Atul Kumar, Mr. Hirdaya Ram,
Mr.Anil Kumar Manget, Mr. Onkar
Jairath, Mr.Shubham Sood, Mr. Sat
Prakash, Mr. Suresh Saini, Mr.
Varun Chauhan, Mr. Hitesh Thakur,
Mr. Atharv Sharma, Ms. Madhurika
Sekhon
Verma,
Mr.
Prashant
Sharma, Mr. H. S. Rangra, Mr.
Goldy Kumar and Mr.Varun Rana,
Advocates,
for
the
respective
petitioner(s).

For the respondents:

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms.
Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate
Generals, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy.
Advocate
General
and
Mr.
Rajat
Chauhan,
Law
Officer,
for
the
respondents/State.

Mr. Owais Khan Pathan, Mr. Parveen
Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Vishal
Panwar,
Mr.
Nimish
Gupta,
Mr.
Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Mr. H.S. Rana &
Mr. A.S. Rana, Mr. Yashveer Singh
Rathore and Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj,
Advocates,
for
the
respective
respondents.

¶13

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶14

All these petitions are being decided by a common

¶15

judgment as identical questions of facts and law are involved.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

The petitioners by way of instant petitions, have assailed Clause 7 (iv) of the “Part Time Multi Task Worker Policy, 2020” (for short, “Policy”) as amended vide letter dated 24.05.2022 being discriminatory and arbitrary.

¶19

As per the amendment carried in Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy, the term “family” was restricted to include “Land Donor or His/Her Spouse and their Children”.

¶20

The grievance of petitioners is that the restrictive meaning assigned to the term “family” is against the spirit of the Policy. It is submitted that the subsequent amendment in the Policy amounted to change of rules after start of game and, as such, was not permissible in law. As per petitioners, since the term “family” has been considered in larger perspective in various other local laws viz., the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the purpose of the Policy is defeated by not considering the connotation of term “family” in similar manner.

¶21

The question raised in all these petitions is no more res integra. This Court in a number of cases has already decided the issues raised in the present proceedings.

¶22

¶23

Some of the judgments passed by this Court on the issue are

¶24

Surender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others , CWP No. 4139 of 2022, decided on 28.06.2022, Balbir Singh vs. State of H.P. and others , CWP No. 4169 of 2022, decided on 29.06.2022 and Smt. Khimi Devi vs. State of H.P. and others , CWP No. 4197 of 2022, decided on 30.06.2022. It has clearly been held that Clause 7 (iv) of the Policy only provided for grant of 8 (eight) marks to those candidates whose families have donated land for school. The term “families” as noticed above, had been used in general term. No details were provided as to who would be included in term “families”. In view of this, the letter dated 24.05.2022 was held to be clarificatory in nature.

¶25

It has also been held that the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker was not a civil post and, as such, the Policy could not be said to have any semblance of rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Policy has been held to be an administrative measure of temporary nature. In this view of the matter, the clarification dated 24.05.2022 in the Policy was held to be legal and valid.

¶26

¶27

The issue that the term “family” as used in the Policy was discriminatory in view of the fact that in other local legislations viz. the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 such term has been given expansive connotation, has also been decided and settled in the aforesaid judgments.

¶28

In Surender Singh vs. State of H.P. and others , CWP No. 4139 of 2022, the judgment passed by this Court was assailed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 33066 of 2022 and was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2023 in following terms:

¶29

“Delay condoned.

¶30

We do not see any valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶32