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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on the claim for contract-service seniority and consequential benefits. Direction issued to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation dated 13.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, affording the petitioner a hearing, passing a detailed speaking order, and taking note of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017); liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to have her contract service counted for the purpose of seniority with consequential benefits (promotion, pay fixation, arrears, with interest @ 9% per annum) — the principal relief sought in the writ petition, ultimately not decided on merits by this Court.

Court's answer

The Court, without going into the merits of the case, disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 13.10.2024 (Annexure P-4).

Ratio / Principle

The representation is to be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks.

Key takeaways

While doing the needful in terms of the order, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order.ratio¶18
In deciding the representation, the authority shall take note of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein the issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated.ratio¶18
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service — Contract service — Counting for seniority and consequential benefits (promotion, pay fixation, arrears with interest @ 9%) — Petition (CWP No.1731 of 2025, Priyanka Devi v. State of H.P. and others) disposed of at threshold without reply or merits — Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, confining prayer to time-bound consideration of pending representation dated 13.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) in light of Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No.2004 of 2017 — Respondents' side (Advocate General with Additional/Deputy Advocates General) accepting notice and undertaking expeditious decision in accordance with law — Court directed respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks, affording opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order, taking note of the Taj Mohammad judgment wherein the very issue already stands adjudicated — Liberty reserved to petitioner to approach appropriate forum if still aggrieved — Pending applications disposed of — No statute cited; no impugned order challenged; no monetary award.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1731 of 2025

Date of Decision: 12.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Priyanka Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

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

For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, 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, petitioner has prayed for

following main relief:-

“ (a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the benefit of contract service for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits for promotion, pay fixation, arrears and other benefits;

(b) The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits alongwith arrears alongwith interest @ 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 petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation dated 13.10.2024 (Annexure P-4 ) 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 representation, if any, filed by the petitioner 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 representation dated 13.10.2024 (Annexure P-4 ) 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

3

of hearing to the petitioner 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 petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 12,2025 (shankar)