Allowed

Chaman Lal v. Hrtc

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jul 2024CMP-T/515/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regularization of services and implementation of a specific memo before HRTC. Court referred to a prior Division Bench decision ordering regularization and directed respondents to consider petitioner's case within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application disposed of by directing respondents to consider petitioner's case as per Vikram Singh judgment within 6 weeks.

Chaman Lal Vs Hrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

2024:HHC:4993

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

CWPOA No.2886 of 2020 Decided on : 12.07.2024

Chaman Lal

...Petitioner

Versus

HRTC & Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶13

For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

¶14

Virender Singh, Judge ( oral )

¶15

CMP-T No.515 of 2024

¶16

Keeping in view the factual position, as

¶17

mentioned, in the application, the same is considered and allowed. Hearing of the case is ordered to be expedited.

¶18

Application is, thus, disposed of.

¶19

CWPOA No.2886 of 2020

¶20

Petitioner-Chaman Lal has invoked the

¶21

jurisdiction of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

2024:HHC:4993 Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), by way of Original Application No.4662 of 2017, preferred, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), seeking the following reliefs:-

¶25

“i. The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of applicant after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc. in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments.

¶26

ii. That respondents may kindly be directed to implement their own memo/communication dated 4.2.2017 (Annexure A-3) in its true letter and spirit.”

¶27

After the abolition of the learned Tribunal, the

¶28

said Original Application was transferred to this Court and thereafter, registered as CWPOA No.2886 of 2020.

¶29

It has fairly been submitted by learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, that similar issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, in a bunch of petitions, lead whereof, is CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as ‘ Vikram Singh Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation’, vide order dated 09.11.2023.

¶30

In such situation, it would be just and appropriate, for this Court, to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the

¶31

¶32

2024:HHC:4993

¶33

decision of Vikram Singh’s case (supra), within a period of

¶34

six weeks, from today, by passing a reasoned order.

¶35

The present petition is disposed of, in the

¶36

aforesaid terms.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶38

disposed of.

¶39

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶40

July 12, 2024

¶41

Gaurav Thakur

Chaman Lal v. Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Lal v. Hrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Singh Vs State of Hp

S.D. Sankhayan Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Gopal Singh Thapa Vs Hpspcb

Bal Krishan Vs Budh Dev Kalia

Gauri Shankar Vs Jagdev Singh

Rohan Kumar Jha Vs State of Hp