Devinder Kumar v. the State of Hp and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Contract service benefits; seniority; annual increments; consequential benefits; arrears with interest at 9% per annum (prayed, not adjudicated); pending representations of employees; decision within six weeks; reasonable time; welfare State; Litigation Policy of the State; mandamus; Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP No. 2004 of 2017; batch disposal of 27 writ petitions; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decided 09.01.2025.
What did the court decide?
Directions to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of the order and to communicate the order so passed to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to stand disposed of. The claimed contractual benefits and arrears (with interest at 9% per annum, as prayed) were not adjudicated by this Court.