Madhu Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1903 of 2025

Date of Decision: 22.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Madhu Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Purohit, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶6

following main reliefs:-

¶7

“(i) That the present Civil Writ Petition may very kindly be allowed and the respondents may be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner as Staff Nurse from the date petitioner was initially appointed on the said post on contractual basis in the month of February 2008, along with all the consequential and financial benefits.

¶8

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to further provide the benefit of the seniority from the date the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse alongwith all the consequential and financial benefits to the petitioner.

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

(iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case/representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in a time bound manner.”

¶12

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, in TA No. 4478 of 2015 titled as Parvati Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr , decided on 11.01.2018, which has been further upheld by Division Bench this Court in CWP No. 5764 of 2020 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Parvati Sharma & Ors, decided on 06.01.2021 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner.

¶13

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-X) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

¶14

3

¶15

Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported with an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court after passing judgment in Parvati (supra). Again Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3038 of 2022 titled as Nisha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh has dealt with the issue and as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner.

¶16

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-X) of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter.

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶18

March 22,2025 (shankar)

Madhu Sharma v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Sharma v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Jai Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shilpa Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Anr.

Manjeet Kaur Vs the State of Hp and Another

Jagdish Sharma Vs the Hppsc and Others

Kamal Kishore Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajender Singh Vs State of Hp and Others