Radhey Shyam Vs State of Hp and Others

“(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner from the year 2002 i.e. immediately after completion of his 8 years daily wage service with all consequential benefits within a time bound period, since the respondents have extended the benefit of regularisation to other junior persons namely Krishan Lal @ Krishnu and Keshav Ram pursuant to the judgment dated 10.07.2020 and 01.07.2020 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWPOA No.348/2019 & CWPOA No.352/2019, but in the case of the petitioner, the respondents have adopted different yardsticks and he has been extended the benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 24.09.2007, which is after the delay of 6 years.”

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

(i-a) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-12).

¶21

(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of 2 years more service in favour of the petitioner, since the petitioner was retired from the services of the respondent department on his attaining the age of 58 years, whereas as per the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2711/2017, titled as Baldev Vs. State of H.P., he was entitled to continue in service till his attaining the age of 60 years.

¶22

(iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner immediately after his retirement as well as arrears accruing therefrom alongwith upto date interest.”

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶24

that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner and the issues raised by him in the writ petition are squarely covered in terms of the decisions rendered in Sh. Krishan Lal @ Krishnu Ram Versus State of H.P. and others² and Keshav Ram Versus State of H.P. and others³ . Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide his case for redressal of the grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶25

2 CWPOA No.348 of 2019, decided on 10.07.2020

¶26

3 CWPOA No.352 of 2019, decided on 01.07.2020

¶27

3

¶28

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but

¶29

without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Krishan Lal² and Keshav Ram³ , within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶30

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

¶31

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶32

March 18, 2025 Mukesh

Radhey Shyam v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam v. 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

Reena Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

Joginder Pal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kanshi Ram Vs the Hrtc and Others

Mushu Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pallavi Vs the MD Hpsfdc and Another

Sarita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others