Allowed

Sukhdev and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024CWP/2511/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a writ petition seeking regularization of petitioners appointed on contract basis. Citing precedents, the Court held petitioners entitled to regular appointment and consequential benefits from initial joining dates, mirroring benefits granted in CWP No. 414 of 2014.

What did the court decide?

Regular appointment and all consequential benefits from date of initial contract joining; benefits of CWP No. 414 of 2014 construed as granted.

Sukhdev and Others Vs State of Hp… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:12131 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2511 of 2024 Decided on: 19.11.2024 Sukhdev & Ors. … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶8

By way of This petition the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶9

“ A) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioners as Junior Engineer (Civil) on regular basis from the date they were initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contract basis i.e. with effect from their respective dates of joining in January 2003.

¶10

B) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release all consequential benefits to the petitioners in view of their appointment on regular basis with effect from their respective dates of joining in January 2003 i.e. regular pay scales, increments, seniority, arrears etc. and all other benefits that are available to regular employees. C) That the respondents may be burdened with costs. D) That the entire record of the case may kindly be summoned.

¶11

E) That such other/further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

( 2024:HHC:12131 )

¶15

petitioners and against the respondents in the interest of justice.”

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised by the petitioners in the present petition is no more res-integra. He has referred to the judgments of this Court in CWP No. 2782 of 2019, titled as Narender Singh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors & CWPOA No. 1453 of 2020, titled as Himachal Government Teachers Union & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors and he further submits that in the light of the pronouncements of aforesaid judgments of this Court, the petitioners are also entitled for the reliefs as they are similarly situated persons.

¶17

Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand has submitted that petitioners have accepted the appointments without any objection and therefore, they are stopped now for raising the plea and further, the case has also hit by delay and laches. In response to this, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have earlier also approached to the Court on the same fact and this is not the first time. The issue in this case is as to whether an incumbent who was offered appointment on contract basis in the absence of any such provision in the Recruitment and Promotions Rules at the time when the appointment was made and seek appointment on regular basis from the initial date of appointment or not.

¶18

A perusal of the judgments relied upon by the learned

¶19

¶20

( 2024:HHC:12131 )

¶21

Counsel for the petitioners which stands referred here-in-above demonstrates that this issue is no more res-integra and there are judgments to the effect that the petitioners indeed are entitled for the above said reliefs. Accordingly, as prayed for, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the direction that the benefits which have given to the petitioners in CWP No. 414 of 2014, titled Kuldip Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors shall be construed to have been granted to the petitioners also, with consequential benefit as granted in said judgment.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶24

November 19, 2024 (Shamsh Tabrez)

Sukhdev and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev and Others v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Balak Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Aman Vs State of Hp and Others

Lalita Kumari and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Deepika Vs State of Hp and Another