Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of without examining merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the Government; liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek further appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to bring the petitioner's service onto the contractual establishment against the post of Jal Rakshak/Pump Attendant on completion of 12 years' service w.e.f. 01.01.2024, with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears and monetary benefits. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature of the prayer and the order proposed, the Court saw no necessity to call for a reply from the respondents, who were represented by learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Vishal Panwar, accepting notice and stating that the pending representation, if any, would be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Without going into the merits of the case, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.ratio¶14
The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the Government.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (CWP No.3301 of 2025; decided 11.03.2025; Sandep Sharma, Judge, oral) disposed of, without going into the merits, a writ petition by Rajesh Kumar against the State of Himachal Pradesh & Others seeking directions to bring his service onto the contractual establishment against the post of Jal Rakshak/Pump Attendant on completion of 12 years' service w.e.f. 01.01.2024 with consequential benefits, and to have his representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) decided. With petitioner's counsel stating on instructions that his client would be content with a time-bound decision on the pending representation, and the respondents' Additional Advocate General accepting notice and undertaking expeditious decision in accordance with law, the Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the Government, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3301 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.03.2025

_______________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

following main reliefs:-

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the service of the petitioner on contractual establishment against the post of Jal Rakshak/Pump Attendant immediately on completion of 12 years service w.e.f. 01.01.2024 alongwith all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears and monetary benefits, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 20.01.2025, Annexure P-6, within time bound manner.”

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

2

2. Before reply, if any, 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 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner.

3. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional 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.

4. 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 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by

3

the Government. 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.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

March 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)