Disposed¶28

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jan 2025CWP/392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of H.P., CWP No.392 of 2025, HP High Court, Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., 06.01.2025; counting of contract service as JBT w.e.f. 06.02.2014; pension under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972; annual increments; seniority; promotion; representation dated 02.09.2024; Taj Mohammad CWP No.2004 of 2017 (decided 03.08.2023); direction to decide representation within six weeks; disposed of without merits; rights and contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Taj Mohammad judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; all rights and contentions left open. ¶28

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to counting of services rendered on contract basis against the post of JBT w.e.f. 06.02.2014 for pension, annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits in accordance with the Taj Mohammad judgment. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly left open; the Court did not adjudicate the entitlement claim regarding counting of contract service.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law and taking into consideration the Taj Mohammad judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioner.

¶26

Key takeaways

Delay in re-filing the writ petition after removal of objections is condoned and CMP No.514 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.392 of 2025) disposed of by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh without examining the merits. The petitioner sought counting of his contractual service against the post of JBT w.e.f. 06.02.2014 for pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, along with annual increments, seniority, promotion and consequential benefits, relying on Taj Mohammad (CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided 03.08.2023), which stands implemented; his representation dated 02.09.2024 was pending. The Court directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Taj Mohammad judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties were left open.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.392 of 2025 Decided on: 6^th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamlesh Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶3

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

CMP No.514 of 2025

¶8

The applicant/petitioner has explained the

¶9

reasons for delay in re-filing the writ petition after removing the objections. Hence, the application is allowed. Delay in re-filing the writ petition is condoned.

¶10

The application stands disposed of.

¶11

CWP No.392 of 2025

¶12

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶13

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

¶14

behalf of the respondents.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the

¶18

parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶19

3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶20

“a. That respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner on contract basis against the post of JBT w.e.f. 06.02.2014 for the purpose of pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, grant of annual increments, seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits on the basis of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in judgment passed in CWP/2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others decided on 03.08.2023, which judgment has been duly implemented by the respondents.

¶21

b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 02.09.2024 of the petitioner in time bound manner in view of above mentioned judgment.”

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others² . Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid

¶23

2 CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023

¶24

¶25

representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision.

¶26

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶27

It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶28

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

¶29

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶30

January 06, 2025 Mukesh

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Pundir Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hitesh Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nirmla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Seema Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another