Disposed¶15

Shilpa Kumari v. the State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Mar 2025CWP/1995/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract service benefits; seniority; annual increments; consequential benefits; arrears; writ of mandamus; Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWP No. 2004 of 2017, Division Bench order dated 3.8.2023; direction to consider and decide in light of precedent within six weeks; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; liberty reserved; Shilpa Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Justice Sandeep Sharma; disposed on 21.03.2025.

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) within six weeks, affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; liberty reserved to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved. ¶15

Shilpa Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant her the benefit of contract service for all purposes, including seniority and annual increments, along with consequential benefits and arrears, as per the judgment in Taj Mohammad (CWP No. 2004 of 2017).

¶8

Court's answer

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Taj Mohammad (CWP No. 2004 of 2017).

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The consideration and decision so directed is to be completed within a period of six weeks.

¶14

Key takeaways

While doing the needful, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order thereafter; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court of law if she still remains aggrieved.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Shilpa Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., CWP No.1995 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 21.03.2025): By way of an oral order, the Court disposed of the writ petition seeking mandamus for grant of contract-service benefits (seniority, annual increments and consequential benefits with arrears) in terms of the Division Bench order dated 3.8.2023 in Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWP No. 2004 of 2017. Without independently adjudicating the entitlement, the respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Taj Mohammad supra within six weeks, affording her an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order thereafter; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate court if she still remained aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:7132

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.1995 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.03.2025

¶4

_____________________________________________________________________ Shilpa Kumari ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. 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) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner the benefit of contract service for all the purposes including seniority, annual increments along with all the consequential benefits as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in "Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others," CWP No. 2004 of 2017. Further direct the respondents to release to the petitioner all the consequential benefits along with arrears at the rate of 9% per annum.”

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue 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

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 she still remains aggrieved.

¶15

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

¶16

March 21, 2025 (sunil)

¶17

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶18

Judge

Shilpa Kumari v. the State of Hp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpa Kumari v. the State of Hp and Anr.

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

Tule Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Megh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

Jai Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manjeet Kaur Vs the State of Hp and Another

Uttam Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others