Tilak Raj Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Tilak Raj Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings closed following demonstrated compliance with the mandate of the earlier judgment; petitioner retains liberty to pursue the grievance in an appropriate forum; notices to respondents discharged

Issue for consideration

Whether the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated has stood duly complied with

Court's answer

Upon perusal of the communication dated 04.12.2024 and the order dated 25.11.2024 taken on record, the Court found that pursuant to the mandate of the judgment alleged to have been violated, the required compliance actions (seniority from initial contract appointment, subject to the SLP outcome, and counting of contract service for pensionary benefit) had been carried out

Ratio / Principle

Nothing remained to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and they were accordingly closed

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate proceeding in an appropriate Court of law if he still remained aggrieved, and the notices issued to the respondents were dischargedratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COPC No.873 of 2024 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 20.12.2024) — compliance-tracking proceeding arising from an allegation of violation of the mandate of an earlier judgment of this Court. On the strength of a communication dated 04.12.2024 of the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, together with an order dated 25.11.2024, the Deputy Advocate General submitted — and the Court, after perusal, recorded — that pursuant to that mandate the Deputy Director Elementary Education, Chamba had been directed to assign seniority to petitioner Tilak Raj from the date of his initial contract appointment, subject to the final outcome of the SLP filed by the Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, and that his contract service had been counted for pensionary benefit on the analogy of the Division Bench judgment in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, Sheela Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. Finding the compliance duly effected, Sandeep Sharma, J. held that nothing remained to be adjudicated, closed the proceedings, reserved liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if still aggrieved, and discharged the notices issued to the respondents.

2024:HHC:15396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

COPC No.873 of 2024

Date of Decision: 20.12.2024

________________________ Tilak Raj	____________ Versus	___________________ …….Petitioner
Rakesh Kanwar and another		… Respondents
_______________________ Coram:	_____________	__________________

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate . For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

While placing on record communication dated 04.12.2024, issued under the signatures of Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated stands duly complied with.

Perusal of the aforesaid communication as well as copy

of order dated 25.11.2024 annexed with the aforesaid communication, which are taken on record, clearly reveals that pursuant to the mandate contained in the judgment alleged to have been violated,

Deputy Director Elementary Education, Chamba has

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

2024:HHC:15396

been already directed to assign the seniority to the petitioner from the date of his initial contract appointment subject to final outcome of the decision in the SLP filed in the matter by the Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh and his contract service has been also counted for the pensionary benefit on the analogy of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged accordingly.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 20,2024 (shankar)