Banti Vs State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.2995 of 2024 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Banti ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents

¶4

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. B.Nandan Vaishta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1-State. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶6

following main reliefs:-

¶7

“(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned order dated 19.02.2024 i.e. Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner have been denied the benefit of services rendered by them on Contract basis for the purpose of seniority with all the consequential benefits, being patently illegal and arbitrary besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent university, to count the services

¶8

2

¶9

rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increments and pension and release all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, thereby grant seniority, increments and all the consequential benefits from the initial date of appointment i.e. 17.07.2017.

¶10

(iii) That the respondent university may kindly be directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the initial date of appointment i.e. 17.07.2017 in view of the prevailing policy i.e. Annexure P-1 and thereby grant all the consequential benefits.”

¶11

Though, respondent No. 2, by way of filing reply, has refuted the claim of the petitioner as put-forth in the petition, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, while making this Court peruse judgment dated 23.06.2025 passed in CWP No. 8032 of 2021, titled as Vikas Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. along with connected matters, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Vikas Kumar ( supra ) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the case of the representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

¶12

Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgments

¶13

3

¶14

sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.

¶15

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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶16

August 11, 2025 (sunil)

¶17

Judge

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma),

Banti v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banti v. 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

Sanyogita Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Nand Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Balbir Singh and Another Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Pawan Dutt Vs the State of Hp and Another

Nirmla Devi and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Anu Pathania Vs the State of Hp and Others