Kamal Kishore Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1925 of 2025

Date of Decision: 22.03.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Kamal Kishore …….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. Mukul Sharma, 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

¶6

following main relief:-

¶7

“That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the date of their initial appointment followed by their regularization for the purpose of annual increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in CWP No.2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and CWPOA No.3282 of 2019 titled as Dr. Ranjit Singh Thakur and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.”

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

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 his pending representation dated 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) 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

¶11

Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner.

¶12

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. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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.

¶13

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 22.10.2024 (Annexure P-6 ) 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

¶14

3

¶15

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

¶16

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶17

March 22,2025 (shankar)

Kamal Kishore v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kishore 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

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

Rajender Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Madhu Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another