Deepak Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Deepak Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without deciding merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representations (Annexure P-3 Colly) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Taj Mohammad judgment (CWP No.2004 of 2017); liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if aggrieved; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of contract service for all purposes including seniority and annual increments, with all consequential benefits and arrears at 9% per annum, in terms of the judgment in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others) — an issue expressly not decided on merits in this petition. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-3 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

Key takeaways

In deciding the representations, the authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a detailed speaking order, taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017), wherein the very issue sought to be decided in these proceedings already stands adjudicated; liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach an appropriate court if still aggrieved, and pending applications stand disposed of.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No.1526 of 2025 (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral), decided 07.03.2025. Petitioners (Deepak Raj and another) prayed for mandamus directing grant of contract-service benefits for all purposes, including seniority and annual increments, with consequential benefits and arrears at 9% per annum, in terms of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No. 2004 of 2017. Before the State could reply, counsel restricted the relief to expeditious decision of the pending representations (Annexure P-3 Colly); the Additional Advocate General (Mr. Rajan Kahol), accepting notice, stated the representations, if any, would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations preferably within eight weeks, affording hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Taj Mohammad judgment, wherein the identical issue already stands adjudicated. Liberty reserved; pending applications disposed. No monetary relief (arrears at 9% p.a. merely sought) was granted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1526 of 2025

Date of Decision: 07.03.2025

_______________________________________________________ Deepak Raj and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, 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, petitioners have prayed for

following main relief:-

“That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Court in “ Taj Mohammad v . State of Himachal Pradesh and Others,” CWP No. 2004 of 2017 . Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioners all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.”

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 petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in case their pending representations (Annexure P-3 Colly) 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 representations, if any, filed by the petitioners 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 representations (Annexure P-3 Colly) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing

3

to the petitioners 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 petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)