Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

	CWP No.260 o connected ma Decided on: 6^t	f 2025 alongwith tters ^hJanuary, 2025
----------------------------------- 1. CWP No.260 of 2025	----------------------	----------------------------
Meena Kumari		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -----------------------------------	----------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
2. CWP No.270 of 2025
Lalit Mohan		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and another -----------------------------------	---------------------	.....Respondents ---------------------------
3. CWP No.272 of 2025
Seema Devi		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -----------------------------------	----------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
4. CWP No.273 of 2025
Rajesh Singh		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -----------------------------------	----------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
5. CWP No.275 of 2025
Ajay Kumari		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others -----------------------------------	----------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------

¶3

2

¶4

6. CWP No.276 of 2025 Surjit Singh …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. CWP No.277 of 2025 Vanita Sharma …..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶11

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶13

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶16

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶17

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶19

parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶20

3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical reliefs. The substantive reliefs in CWP

¶21

No.260 of 2025 read as under:-

¶22

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶23

3

¶24

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to count the services of the petitioner from her initial appointment on contract basis till their regularization for the purpose of seniority, increments, pensionery benefits and other consequential benefits in terms of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad v/s State of H.P., CWPOA No.1745/2020 titled as Chaman Lal & Others v/s State of H.P and recently in CWP No.5290/2023 titled as Arun Kumar v/s State of H.P. in the interest of justice.

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of their appointment to the date of realization.”

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others² . Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the representations preferred by the petitioners, annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-3, for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the

¶27

2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023

¶28

4

¶29

respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision.

¶30

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶31

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶32

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶34

January 06, 2025 Mukesh

Seema Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Devi 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

Uma Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hitesh Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nirmla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another