Sushma Vs State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:14025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.14976 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 11^th December, 2024

-------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.14976 of 2024	-----------------	------------------------------
Amrish Kumar		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 2. CWP No.14978 of 2024	-----------------	------------------------------
Sushma		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
3. CWP No.14980 of 2024
Amit Kumar and others		…..Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. and another		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.14983 of 2024	-----------------	------------------------------
Bhavan Kumar		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------- Coram	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶6

2

¶7

2024:HHC:14025

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Additional

¶12

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶14

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶15

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP

¶16

No.14976 of 2024 read as under:-

¶17

“(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of contractual services from the date of their initial appointment on contract basis till the date of their regularization, as qualifying services for the purpose of seniority, promotion, increments and pensionary benefits as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶18

(ii). That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefits of judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad and others Versus State of H.P. and others, along with connected matters and the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also implemented by the respondents in many cases, with all consequential benefits.

¶19

(iii). That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation Annexure P-3 within time bound manner.”

¶20

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

¶21

3

¶22

2024:HHC:14025

¶23

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others² . Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-3, for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision.

¶24

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the

¶25

2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023

¶26

4

¶27

2024:HHC:14025

¶28

aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also

¶29

be communicated to the petitioners.

¶30

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of

¶31

the parties are left open.

¶32

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶33

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 11, 2024 Judge Mukesh

Sushma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Verma and Others Vs State of Hp

Virender Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Kusum Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Yudhbir Singh Vs Hp Technical University

Dinesh Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bachni Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others