Ratti Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No.7681 of 2022 a/w CWP Nos.4766, 7619, 7711, 8627 of 2022, 221, 2061, 2091 and 2437 of 2023 Decided on: 4^th January, 2024

¶3

__________________________________________________________
1. CWP No.7681 of 2022
Ratti Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
……Respondents
2. 4766 of 2022
Rita Devi
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
……Respondents
3. CWP No.7619 of 2022
Amar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
……Respondents
4. CWP No.7711 of 2022
Jagat Ram
....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others
……Respondents

¶4

	- 2 -
5.	CWP No.8627 of 2022 Kushal Dutt Versus	....Petitioner
	State of H.P. and others	……Respondents
6.	CWP No.221 of 2023 Jalam Singh Versus	....Petitioner
	State of H.P. and others	……Respondents
7.	CWP No.2061 of 2023 Multan Singh Versus	....Petitioner
	State of H.P. and others	……Respondents
8.	CWP No.2091 of 2022 Lajinder Singh Versus	....Petitioner
	State of H.P. and others	……Respondents
	*AND*
9.	CWP No.2437 of 2023 Babu Ram Versus	....Petitioner
	State of H.P. and others	……Respondents

¶5

3 -

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶8

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocates, in all the petitions, except CWP No.4766 of 2022. Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner, in CWP No.4766 of 2022. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State, in all the petitions.

¶10

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶11

CWP No.4766 of 2022

¶12

De-linked from CWP No.7681 of 2022. List after six

¶13

weeks. In the meantime, pleadings be completed.

¶14

CWP No.7681 of 2022 a/w CWP Nos.7619, 7711, 8627 of 2022, 221, 2061, 2091 and 2437 of 2023

¶15

2. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel, for the petitioners

¶16

submits that the facts and the reliefs prayed for in all these petitions are identical and, therefore, all these petitions may be taken up for disposal, at this stage. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed by the learned State Counsel.

¶17

3. With the consent of the parties, these writ petitions

¶18

are taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar

¶19

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶20

4 -

¶21

facts as borne out from the pleadings.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that CWP No.7681 of 2022, titled as Ratti Ram Versus State of H.P. and others, may be treated as lead case for the reason that the prayer and relief in all the petitions is identical. In view of this, the prayer so made, is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and is accordingly granted in the interests of justice.

¶23

5. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the facts and other details are extracted from CWP No.7681 of 2022, titled as Ratti Ram Versus State of H.P. and others.

¶24

6. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer:“That Annexure P-1 may be set aside/quashed and the respondents may be ordered to re-fix the pay of the petitioner by granting him the pay scale by taking into account work charge service rendered by the petitioner.”

¶25

instructions, has submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the decision of this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021 ,

¶26

titled as State of HP and others vs. Surajmani and another ,

¶27

5 -

¶28

decided on 12.01.2023, alongwith connected matters.

¶29

8. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in terms of the decision of this Court in Surajmani’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within five weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶30

9. In case, upon consideration, the respondents extend the benefit in terms of the judgment in case of Surajmani’s case (supra), then since the SLP is pending then, any benefits including monetary benefits, if any, shall be released only after seeking an undertaking/bond from the petitioners.

¶31

In aforesaid terms, writ petitions as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge

January 04, 2024

(Bhardwaj)

Ratti Ram v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratti Ram 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Subhash Chander Vs Veena Devi

Roop Kaur and Others Vs Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and Others

Ravi Dass Vs the State of Hp and Others

Arvind Sharma Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others