Petition for regular appointment and pension benefits directed the State to consider the petitioner's case in light of a prior judgment in Narender Singh Thakur within eight weeks.
Direction to State to decide petitioner's case within eight weeks per Narender Singh Thakur judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 4052 of 2024.
Date of Decision : 16 th May, 2024.
Arvind Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).
Notce. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
i. That appointment of petitioner from initial date of appointment (since he joined as TGTs on contract basis) may be considered as regular appointment in accofrdance with R&P Rules of 1973, and contract appointment of petitioner may kindly be declared as illegal, null and void being contrary to R&P Rules and thereafter his case may be considered for all consequential benefits including pension.
ii. Respondents further directed to give regular appointment to petitioner from initial date of appointment on contract appointment of the petitioner may kindly be treat as regular appointment against the
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
1
…2…
post of Trained Graduate Teacher from the initial date of their appointment with all consequential benefits more particularly pension.
iii. That the respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits like seniority, increment, pension etc., as a regular employee from initial date of appointment.
iv. That in alternate petitioner may be deemed to be regular appointees from initial date of appointment for all intent and purpose like seniority, pay fixation, increments etc. in accordance with old R&P Rules, they may be given same treatment to petitioner as given to respondents of LPA 54/2013 and connected matters, as well petitioners of CWP No. 414/2014, CWP 3144/2011 along with all consequential benefits. “
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that issue akin to the one raised in the instant petition has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 14th March, 2024, passed in CWPOA No. 2782 of 2019, titled
as Narender Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. &
Ors. He has further submitted that the petitioner herein shall be satisfied, at this stage, in case the respondent-State is directed to consider and decide the case of petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.
…3…
eight weeks from today strictly in terms of the judgment passed by this Court on 14th March, 2024, in CWPOA No. 2782 of 2019, titled as Narender Singh Thakur & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Needless to say that in case petitioner is found identically situated as the beneficiaries in the case(s) decided vide aforesaid judgment dated 14th March, 2024, the petitioners shall also be extended all such benefits as made available to beneficiaries therein within further period of four weeks.
of.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
16th May, 2024. (jai)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's contract appointment as TGT should be treated as regular with consequential benefits?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narender Singh Thakur & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.Referred¶30
CWPOA No. 2782 of 2019, titled as Narender Singh Thakur & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
Arvind Kumar
State of H.P.
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
