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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks for redressal of his grievances; the competent authority to decide it expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in the light of the judgments detailed in the order (Sanjay Kumar; Laxmi Chand, as applied in Kanta Devi), after affording an opportunity of being heard; no direct regularization granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be ordered to regularize the petitioner's services from the date he completed 10 years of service, with all incidental benefits, as has been done in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority within two weeks; the representation shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of the judgments detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Ratio / Principle

On careful perusal of the petition averments (supported by affidavit and documents) vis-a-vis the judgment relied upon, the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated (in the identical-facts matter of Smt. Kanta Devi), and therefore there is no justification to call for a reply from the respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regularization – parity claim – Megh Singh, a CWP petitioner, sought regularization of services from the date he completed 10 years of service with incidental benefits, on parity with Smt. Kanta Devi, whose identical claim in CWPOA No. 6929 of 2020 was directed to be considered in light of Sanjay Kumar (CWP No. 2804 of 2012) and Laxmi Chand (CWP No. 11506 of 2011), and in whose favour a consideration order dated 13.09.2024 was passed by the Director Ayush, Himachal Pradesh. Holding that the issue raised already stood adjudicated in identical facts, the Court (Sandeep Sharma, J.), without going into the merits and without calling for a reply, disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks, to be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, in light of the aforesaid judgments, after affording an opportunity of being heard. Decision dated 20.03.2025.

2025:HHC:6845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3859 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Megh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, 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 respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following main relief:

“(i) That the respondents may be ordered to regularize services of the petitioner from the date he completed 10 years service, as has been done in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in a case with identical facts in CWPOA No. 6929 of 2020 titled as Kanta Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, directions were issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of judgments passed in CWP No. 2804 of 2012 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. , and CWP No 11506

2

of 2011 titled as Laxmi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &

Ors. He further contends that respondents, in compliance to the afore orders, have passed a consideration order dated 13.09.2024, thereby acceding to the prayer made by the petitioner in afore cases.

Having perused order dated 13.09.024 passed by the Director Ayush, Himachal Pradesh, in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi i.e. petitioner in CWP No. 6929 of 2020, afore submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct.

While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner to consider his case in light of aforesaid judgments shall be considered expeditiously. Since careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are dully supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith visa-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, reveals that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General.

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 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the

3

competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of judgments detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgments. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereafter.

March 20, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge