Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWPOA No. 4798/2020 Decided on: 18.4.2024

Pradeep Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & ors. ….Respondents [ Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶5

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, vice Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G.

¶6

Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral)

¶7

The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:

¶8

“that the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as daily wage clerk w.e.f. 7.2.2006 on notional basis, on which date applicant has been given appointment as daily wage beldar on the basis of judgments passed in Annexure A-1 (colly).”

¶9

2 We are really wonder how the instant petition is maintainable as admittedly the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 1575/2012 for an identical relief and the same decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.5.2014 with a

¶10

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

¶11

2

¶12

direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Clerk in terms of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in CWP No. 1343/2012, titled as Ishwar Singh vs. State of H.P., however the respondent-State assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 1892014/, titled as State of H.P. vs. Pradeep Kumar. The appeal was thereafter tagged with a batch of other cases lead being CWP No. 9094/2013, titled as Surender Kumar vs. State of H.P. and connected matters, which came to be decided by learned Division Bench of this Court on 6.10.2015 and the appeal filed by the State was allowed with pertinent observation made in para 77 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

¶13

77. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the incumbents, who have been appointed on a particular post and have joined to the said post without expressing any reluctance or protest, such incumbents are precluded from claiming that they should either be appointed to a higher post or should have been given appointment on regular basis, instead of employment on contract basis, or have been discriminated viz. a viz. similarly paced persons.”

¶14

3 This judgment was assailed by the petitioner before

¶15

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however SLP came to be dismissed in limine. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶16

3

¶17

in personam would obviously bind the parties to the dispute i.e. petitioner and the respondents herein and is thus not open to challenge in the instant petition for the same reason and the petitioner can also not seek any support from the other judgments relied upon by him, more particularly, judgment rendered in CWP No. 7803/2010, titled as Sukh Dutt vs. State of H.P., decided on 16.12.2010 or for that matter, judgment rendered in CWP (T) No. 15008/2008, titled as Nagender Singh vs. State of H.P., decided on 12.11.2009.

¶18

4 In view of aforesaid discussions, we find the instant petition to be not maintainable and accordingly the same as also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶20

(Sushil Kukreja) 18.4.2024 Judge

¶21

(pankaj)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Singh @ Vicky Vs State of Hp and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajat Goswami Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Sunil Kumar Chandel and Others

Dimple Kumari Vs Vaneet Kumar

Devinder Singh Vs State