Kapil Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.5803 of 2023 Date of Decision: 20.11.2025

¶3

Kapil Dev

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶6

…....Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶11

following main reliefs:

¶12

“a) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to treat the daily wage basis appointment/service of the petitioner as Clerk w.e.f. 11.12.2006 as regular service with all consequential benefits and thus consequential modify/quash the order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) as well as 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-3) accordingly.

¶13

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble court deems fit directing the Respondent to give the benefit of regular service to the Petitioner with effect from the initial dates of his appointment

¶14

2 -

¶15

on daily wage basis (i.e. 11.12.2006) with all consequential benefits, for all intents and purposes along with interest

¶16

c) Consequentially Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to consider the service of the Petitioner to be reckoned for seniority and for all terminal benefits as and when they fall due and pay of the Petitioner accordingly be fixed.

¶17

d) Accordingly Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, directing the Respondent to pay arrears of salary payable to the Petitioner on regular basis w.e.f. 11.12.2006 and be computed and paid over to him within two months from the date of the order along with interest and all consequential benefits.

¶18

e) In Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the case by directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 18.03.2022 in terms of the law as well as the Judgment dated 08.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 16158-16165/2016 (HRTC vs. Lekh Ram & other) within a time bound manner.”

¶19

2. Though claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents by way of filing reply, but learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 23.6.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 8032 of 2021, titled Vikas Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters) and judgment dated 1.5.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled R. Ranjith Singh and Ors v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5137-38 of

¶20

3 -

¶21

2021, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in afore judgments and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the respondents state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and case of the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶23

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 liberty to the petitioner to file representation within one week to the competent authority, which in turn shall consider and decide the same in light of afore judgments, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

November 20, 2025

¶25

(manjit)

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Kapil Dev v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Dev 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

Paramjeet Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Kehar Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Satya Pal Vs State of Hp and Others

Hans Raj Vs the State of Hp and Another

Controller of Stores Northern Railways Vs M/S Cbm Industries Private Ltd. and Another

Arjun Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others