Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

i) “Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his regularization on the post of Class IV post in terms of the Government policy dated 28.12.2021 (Annexure P-5) w.e.f. 25.06.2020 with all consequential benefits.

¶25

ii) Alternative issue a writ of Certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner on daily wage service w.e.f. 25.06.2016 as regular service with all consequential benefits.

¶26

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents to pay the petitioner, the arrears w.e.f. 25.06.2020 till date as per the revised regular scales from time to time, with interest @ 12% per annum within a time bound manner.

¶27

iv) Accordingly issue a writ of certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ, order, directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the respondents to issue appropriate Gant-in-Aid to meet the expenditure towards regular payment of Regular Salary to the petitioner within a time bound manner.”

¶28

3

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving on daily wage basis with respondent No.4School since the year 2016 and till date his services have not been regularized. He further informs the Court that persons similarly situated as the petitioner had approached this Court earlier and now there is an adjudication made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.6687 of 2020, titled Roop Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters and it will be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition be disposed of in same terms. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in general and directions passed therein as are contained in Para-50 thereof in particular. The adjudication of the lis of persons similarly situated as the petitioner by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court could not be disputed by the State though learned Additional Advocate General submits that the State is exploring its legal remedies against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

¶30

4

¶31

Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact

¶32

that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no more resintegra, this petition is disposed of by ordering that the directions passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench referred to hereinabove shall mutatis mutandis apply to this petition also and the petition stands disposed of by further directing that the directions contained in Para-50 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench shall be treated to have been passed in the present petition also. This of course, shall be subject to the legal rights of the respondent of assailing the decisions in issue. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

¶33

disposed of.

¶34

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶35

July 15, 2024 (Vinod)

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khem Singh Vs Hrtc and Another

Bhag Mal Vs Roshan Lal Thakur

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Subhash Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Asha Devi and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Devender Chand and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.