Sunita Devi and Others Vs Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sunita Devi and Others Vs Hrtc and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the judgment in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh and others versus HRTC) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of copy of the order, communicating the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the services of petitioner No.1's husband, engaged by the Respondent Corporation, are to be regularized from his initial date of appointment as a regular appointee with consequential benefits, or alternatively immediately after one year of contractual service by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, in terms of the judgment in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh).

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the judgment in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 (Vikram Singh) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order, the decision so arrived at to be communicated to the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (single Bench, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — CWP No.7970 of 2025, decided 15.05.2025 — Sunita Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing HRTC (a) to regularize the services of petitioner No.1's husband from his initial date of appointment, treating him as a regular appointee with consequential benefits, or (b) in the alternative, to regularize his services immediately after completion of one year of contractual service by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, in view of this Court's judgment in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, Vikram Singh and others v. HRTC (decided 09.11.2023). Counsel for both sides agreed the issue and reliefs stood covered by the Vikram Singh judgment; petitioners were content if their cases were considered in light of it. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners' respective cases in light of the said judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to them. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stood disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7970 of 2025

Decided on: 15^th May, 2025

Sunita Devi and others …..Petitioners

Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another .....Respondents

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate vice

Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Raditya Katoch, Advocate vice Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, appears and waives

service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive reliefs:-

“a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing Respondent Corporation regularize services of husband of present petitioner No.1 from his initial date of appointment and treat him as appointee on regular appointee with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.

b) That or in alternative, the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of husband

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

2

of present petitioner No.1 immediately after completion of one year contractual service, by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, with further direction to release all consequential benefits in view of judgment by this Hon’ble Court in case CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 titled as Vikram Singh and others versus HRTC in favour of petitioner.”

3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the issue involved and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners have already been adjudicated in Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport

Corporation² . Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content if their respective cases are considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned vice counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection to this prayer.

4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners.

2 CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 09.11.2023.

3

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

May 15, 2025 Mukesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge