Dismissed

Hari Lal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Oct 2023CWPOA/5681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a copyright/civil bifurcation order (CWPOA) filed by a former employee seeking monetary benefits from 2012. The court held that the denial of these benefits in a previous Tribunal order operated as a bar to a fresh claim in the present proceeding.

What did the court decide?

The CWPOA along with any pending miscellaneous applications is dismissed.

Hari Lal Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No.5681 of 2020 Decided on: 12^th October, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hari Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Arsh Rattan & Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocates General.

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶9

This OA/CWPOA is filed by the petitioner for a

¶10

direction to the respondents to grant him monetary benefits w.e.f. 30.08.2012.

¶11

2. The petitioner was initially engaged as Part-Time

¶12

Water Carrier and was promoted as Whole Time Contingent paid employee alongwith 26 others and posted at GMS Kawas, District

¶13

Chamba through an office order dt. 30.08.2012. Through the very

¶14

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

¶15

¶16

same office order, his services were regularized from the date of completion of his 14 years of services. According to the respondents, however, after the office order of 30.08.2012 was passed, the petitioner did not join his duty, so he was converted as a Daily Wager through an order dt. 20.06.2015. Subsequently, he was further promoted as a regular Class-IV employee through an order dt. 17.09.2016 and posted at GSSS Tissa, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

¶17

3. Petitioner then filed O.A. no.1342 of 2015 before the then Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal stating that he should be promoted as a Whole Time Contingent paid employee from the date his juniors were promoted alongwith arrears of pay, allowances & consequential benefits and his services should also be regularized as per the seniority with consequential benefits.

¶18

4. The said original application was allowed on 19.07.2017 partly and only the relief of directing the respondents to confer status of water carrier on daily wage basis from the date his juniors were given the said status, was granted. The other reliefs that he should be paid arrears of pay, allowances and consequential benefits were denied.

¶19

5. Petitioner did not question the said order. The respondents also did not question the said order and granted to the

¶20

¶21

petitioner the status of Whole Time Contingent paid worker w.e.f. 30.08.2012 and thereafter his services were also regularized on notional basis as regular Class-IV w.e.f. 13.09.2012, i.e the date from which his juniors were promoted.

¶22

6. Petitioner has filed the instant OA/CWPOA contending that he should have been granted actual monetary benefits also w.e.f. 30.08.2012 with interest @ 9% per annum.

¶23

7. Since the said reliefs sought by the petitioner in O.A. no.1342 of 2015 were not granted, and since the order dt. 19.07.2017 in the said OA has not been challenged by the petitioner by contending that he should also be given the actual monetary benefits from 30.08.2012, it is not open to the petitioner to make the said claim in this OA/CWPOA. This is because the denial of said benefits in the previous O.A. no.1342 of 2015 would operate as a bar for making a fresh claim in this OA/CWPOA.

¶24

8. Accordingly, this CWPOA is dismissed alongwith

¶25

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶26

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice

¶27

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua) Judge

¶28

October 12, 2023 Mukesh

Hari Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Lal 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

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Man Singh

Shiv Singh Vs State of Hp

State of Hp and Others Vs Suresh Kumar and Another

Hans Raj Vs State of Hp

The State of Hp and Others Vs Sunita Thakur

State of Hp and Others Vs Hp State Human Right Commission