Shobha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3591 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Shobha Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate.

¶4

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 respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶6

following main relief:

¶7

“(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions to the respondent to grant the benefit of contract service for the purpose of seniority and other consequential benefits for promotion, pay fixation, arrears and other benefits.

¶8

(ii) The respondents may be further directed to release the consequential benefits along with arrears along with interest @9% interest p.a.”

¶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

2

¶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

May 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Shobha Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Kumari Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ganesh Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Yash Pal Bansal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others

Rakesh Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Ors.