Partly allowed

Daleep Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Nov 2023CWP/8141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh granted deemed date of appointment to a petitioner claiming discrimination against similarly placed persons. The court directed the Director of Elementary Education to extend service benefits from 29.02.2008 and decide the case within six weeks, while disposing of the pending writ and miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be treated as recruited from 29.02.2008; service benefits to be granted accordingly; Director of Elementary Education to decide within six weeks.

Daleep Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 8141 of 2023
Decided on: 04.11.2023
Daleep Singh ……..Petitioners Versus

¶2

State of H.P. & Ors

¶3

…….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE

¶6

WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

¶7

For the petitioners : Mr. Hamender S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General for respondents

¶8

Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

¶9

After hearing the matter for some time, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 01.08.2023, the operative part under reference dated 28.07.2023 whereof, is reads as under:-

¶10

“In this context, the matter has been examined thoroughly and it is found that the name of the petitioner i.e. Daleep Singh was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the office of the DDEE Kangra for physically Handicapped during the year 2008 for the post of DM under PHH quota. But eh candidature of the petitioner was not considered by your office due to reason that he belongs to District Sirmour. Now he wants relief to fix his pay treating the deemed date of appointment of the petitioner as 29.02.2008. He joined as DM in District Kangra on

¶11

¶12

03.05.2012 and presently is working at GHS Gojjar u/c GSSS Bhagani, District Sirmour after transfer you’re your district.

¶13

In this context, it is also informed that the relief sought by the petitioner is found genuine and he deserves for deemed appointment subject to his selection at that relevant time as per instruction of the State Government issued vide letter No.Karmik (N1-II) GH(5)4/80 dated 27.11.1981. You are, hereby, directed to consider the case of the petitioner for recruitment as DM from the year 2008 and in the event of his selection in that panel he may be offer deemed appointment on notional basis from the date of appointment of his counterpart and send the action taken report to this office within two days positively so that affidavit could be filed in the Hon’ble Court well in time.”

¶14

A perusal of the above instructions reveal that

¶15

though the petitioner has in fact joined as Drawing Master on 3.5.2012 but now the Director of Elementary Education has directed the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Kangra to grant the benefit of deemed date of appointment as per Drawing Master w.e.f. 29.02.2008 to the petitioner. In view of the communication dated 28.07.2023, as enclosed with the instructions furnished to this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶16

¶17

respondents may be directed to extend/release all the service benefits, including monetary benefits w.e.f. 29.02.2008 as has been released to many other similarly placed persons as referred to in Annexure P-15, and when, the inaction of the respondent(s) have forced the petitioner to undergo multiple round of litigation(s).

¶18

In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he shall make a representation to the Respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, within four weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent-authority to examine/decide the case of the petitioner, within six weeks thereafter, without discriminating the petitioner vis-à-vis similarly situated persons; and the claim for admissible service benefits, including consequential benefits shall also be decided within the above period.

¶19

As aforesaid, the instant writ petition as well as,

¶20

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶21

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶22

November 4, 2023 (himani)

Daleep Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daleep Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrinal Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Mansara Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Anju Bala Vs State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Others

Savita Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Jitender Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.