Savita Rani and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

“(a) That the respondent authority be directed to count entire services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis through RKS i.e. from the year 2009 as well as their services continuing with the Respondent

¶21

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

¶22

2

¶23

Department on Government contract basis from 2013 and being regularized in the year 2017,

¶24

(b) That the Respondent Authority be directed to give all benefits from the date of their initial appointment i.e., in the year 2009 followed by their regularization, for the purpose of increments, seniority and all other consequential service benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed in Taj Mohammad Case.”

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶26

that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs prayed for by them 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 08.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) preferred by the petitioners for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the respondents are not averse to consider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left open for decision.

¶27

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

¶28

3

¶29

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but

¶30

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 petitioners (Annexure P-7) 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 petitioners.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

January 09, 2025 Mukesh

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Savita Rani and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Rani and Others v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bablu Sandal and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Sukh Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vikram Jeet Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reeta Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Hp and Others

Devinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another