Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15058 of 2024 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 6^th January, 2025

------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15058 of 2024	------------------------------
Subhash Chand	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
2. CWP No.15059 of 2024
Balak Ram	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
3. CWP No.15060 of 2024
Shiv Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 4. CWP No.15061 of 2024	------------------------------
Som Paul	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- Coram	------------------------------
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶5

2

¶6

For the Petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶10

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶12

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶13

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant

¶14

of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP

¶15

No.15058 of 2024 read as under:-

¶16

“I. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to count the entire contractual service rendered by petitioner towards seniority, increment and other service benefits along with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.

¶17

II. That the respondent department may kindly be directed to extend same and similar benefits to the petitioner as has been extended to the similarly situated persons in light of judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 a/w CWP No.629/2018 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad & others vs State of H.P. & others, CWPOA NJo.1745 of 2020 titled Chaman Lal & others vs State of H.P. & others along with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶18

III. That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within time bound manner.”

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶20

that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs

¶21

3

¶22

prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others² . Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations dated 22.09.2024 preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-4, for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision.

¶23

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above

¶24

2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023

¶25

4

¶26

judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶27

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶28

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶29

any.

¶30

January 06, 2025 Mukesh

¶31

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Shiv Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

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

Uma Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hitesh Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nirmla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.