Poonam Chandel Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1594 of 2025

Date of Decision: 07.03.2025

_______________________________________________________ Poonam Chandel …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

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

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate.

¶7

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):

¶8

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶9

following main relief:-

¶10

“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 petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.”

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

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 her pending representation dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner 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

¶16

3

¶17

of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order

¶18

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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶20

March 07,2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Poonam Chandel v. the State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Chandel v. the State of Hp and Anr.

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

Bhagwan Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Prakash Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sada Ram Vs the Hrtc and Others

Lalita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dev Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Deepak Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another