Disposed¶16

Charanjeet Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Mar 2025CWP/1773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract basis service counting; Physical Education Teacher; seniority; annual increment; pensionary benefits; mandamus; covered-by Taj Mohammad; CWP No. 2004 of 2017; order dated 3.8.2023; Division Bench; six weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; State of Himachal Pradesh; Sandeep Sharma, J.; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Taj Mohammad (CWP No. 2004 of 2017, order dated 3.8.2023) within six weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶16

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to counting of his service rendered on contract basis as Physical Education Teacher from 31.08.2012 to 22.05.2017 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefits, in light of the Division Bench judgment in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 (Taj Mohammad).

¶8

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Taj Mohammad (order dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017) within a period of six weeks; the Court did not adjudicate the entitlement claim on merits.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The authority concerned, while considering the case in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter.

¶15

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 jurisdiction of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of on the footing that the controversy is squarely covered by the Division Bench order dated 3.8.2023 in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. The petitioner, who claimed counting of his contract service as Physical Education Teacher (31.08.2012 to 22.05.2017) for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefits, was held entitled only to a direction that the respondents consider and decide his case in light of Taj Mohammad within six weeks, after affording him an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to seek further remedies if still aggrieved. The Court did not itself decide the entitlement claim on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1773 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Charanjeet Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate.

¶4

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals & Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶7

following main relief:

¶8

“(i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to count the service rendered by petitioner on contract basis as Physical Education Teacher from 31.08.2012 to 22.05.2017 for seniority, annual increment, pensionary and other consequential benefit as per the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected vide judgment 03-082023 titled as Shri Taj Mohammad & others in the interest of justice and fair play.”

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue

¶10

raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of

¶11

¶12

2017 titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors .

¶13

and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner.

¶14

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶15

Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

¶16

In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.

¶17

March 13, 2025 (sunil)

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶19

Judge

Charanjeet Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjeet 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

Gagan Kanthwal and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Mukul Jishtu Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp

Kaushalya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Amit Sharma Vs the Hpptcl