Bhagwan Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bhagwan Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017); liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his entire service rendered on contract basis from the date of initial appointment, followed by regularization, counted for annual increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits in terms of the judgments in Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017) and Dr. Ranjit Singh Thakur (CWPOA No.3282 of 2019).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority acting on the direction shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad (supra), wherein the issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.1437 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla) — Bhagwan Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. — Petitioner prayed for counting of his entire service rendered on contract basis from the date of initial appointment followed by regularization towards annual increments, seniority and consequential service benefits, in terms of the Division Bench judgments in Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017) and Dr. Ranjit Singh Thakur (CWPOA No.3282 of 2019). Before the respondents' reply was received, petitioner's counsel, on instructions, confined the relief to an expeditious, time-bound decision of his pending representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) in light of Taj Mohammad. Held (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral): without going into the merits, petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of Taj Mohammad, wherein the issue already stands adjudicated; liberty reserved to the petitioner to move the appropriate court if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1437 of 2025

Date of Decision: 06.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Bhagwan Dass …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“ That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis from the date of his initial appointment followed by his regularization for the purpose of annual increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and CWPOA No.3282 of 2019 titled as Dr. Ranjit Singh Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.”

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

2

Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

3

Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 06,2025 (shankar)