Disposed¶28

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2025CWP/16384/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kuldeep Singh v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.16384 of 2025, decided on 16 October 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua); regularization of contractual service from completion of two years (13.10.2022); policy dated 28.12.2021; reliance on Uttam Ram (CWP No.5267 of 2025, decided 22.09.2025); no representation on record; representation-directed disposal with four-week decision timeline; arrears, seniority and consequential benefits sought but not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks; the competent authority directed to consider and decide it in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Uttam Ram judgment, within a further period of four weeks, and to communicate the order to the petitioner.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization of service with effect from the date he completed two years of contractual service (13.10.2022) in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021, as per the judgment dated 22.09.2025 (Uttam Ram). +1 more

¶15

Ratio / Principle

This Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks from the date of the order for the redressal of his grievances.

¶24

Key takeaways

The competent authority shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Uttam Ram (CWP No.5267 of 2025, decided on 22.09.2025), within a further period of four weeks, and the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶27
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.16384 of 2025, decided on 16 October 2025) by Kuldeep Singh, a contractual employee, seeking mandamus for regularization of service with effect from 13.10.2022, the date he completed two years of contractual service, in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021 read with the judgment dated 22.09.2025 (Uttam Ram, CWP No.5267 of 2025), along with arrears, seniority and other consequential benefits and counting of contract service. Counsel submitted the issue had already been adjudicated in Uttam Ram; however, the writ record disclosed no representation by the petitioner. With counsel's consent and no objection from the Additional Advocate General, the Court disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation within two weeks, to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Uttam Ram judgment, within a further four weeks, with the order to be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were likewise disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16384 of 2025 Decided on: 16^th October, 2025

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep Singh …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶13

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

¶14

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶15

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date he completed two years of contractual service i.e. 13.10.2022 in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021 as per the judgment dated 22.09.2025 ( Annexure P-1).

¶16

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date he completed two years of contractual service i.e. 13.10.2022 in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears, seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.10.2022 as per various judgments passed by this Hon’ble High Court.

¶20

v) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the contract service rendered by the petitioner for all the benefits as per various judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised by the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been adjudicated upon in Uttam Ram & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others² .

¶22

The writ record does not reflect any representation having been preferred by the petitioner to the respondents for the redressal of his grievances in light of Uttam Ram² .

¶23

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the respondents for the redressal of grievances raised in this writ petition and the same is directed to be decided by the competent authority within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has not objection to this prayer.

¶24

4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who

¶25

2 CWP No.5267 of 2025, decided on 22.09.2025

¶26

¶27

shall, in turn, consider and decide the same in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Uttam Ram² , within a further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwant Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sanjay Singh Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hari Dutt Sharma Vs Ashish Kohli

Meena Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagdish Chand Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Bhim Sen Vs the State of Hp and Others