Hardev Singh and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jun 2025LPA/146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ACP benefit JBT teacher 4 years service year 2015 delay laches Letters Patent Appeal LPA 146 133 150 of 2025 Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla infructuous disposed Sanjay Kumar CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 SLP Apex Court pendency Hem Raj CWP No.12377 of 2024 order 20.11.2024 23 writ petitions parity representation rejected Deputy Director Elementary Education Mandi 02.06.2025 office order leave open agitate grievances afresh CWP 14789 14790 14797 of 2024 decided 06.12.2024

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed of as infructuous; petitioners left at liberty to agitate their grievances afresh if any benefit is granted at a subsequent point of time in Hem Raj's case in view of the final decision in Sanjay Kumar's case before the Apex Court; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ¶¶19

Hardev Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners/appellants were entitled to the benefit of ACP on completion of 4 years of service as JBT Teachers, the claim pertaining to the year 2015. +2 more

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

Any cause which arose in the present appeals has now become infructuous by virtue of the order passed in similarly situated cases, the State having taken a call to keep the issue pending and rejected the cases on account of pendency of litigation.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

It is left open to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances if any benefit is granted at a subsequent point of time in Hem Raj's case, in view of the final decision in Sanjay Kumar's case decided by the Apex Court.ratio¶¶19
If the SLP is allowed, the petitioners would not be entitled to any benefit; if the view in Sanjay Kumar's case is sustained and the State chooses to take a different view in Hem Raj's case, it would be open to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances afresh.obiter¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeals (LPA No.146 of 2025 with LPA Nos.133 and 150 of 2025, decided 03.06.2025) by groups of JBT teachers (Hardev Singh, Jodh Singh, Tej Prakash & Others) against dismissal of their writ petitions (CWP Nos.14789, 14790, 14797 of 2024, decided 06.12.2024) by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches, their ACP claim on completion of 4 years of service pertaining to the year 2015. Before the Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice and Ranjan Sharma, Judge), counsel pointed to the order dated 20.11.2024 in CWP No.12377 of 2024 (Hem Raj) directing consideration of 23 similar writ petitions; however, the State produced an office order of the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi dated 02.06.2025 rejecting the request because the department has assailed the judgment in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others) by filing an SLP pending in the Apex Court, with further action deferred until finality there. Holding that the causes in the appeals had thereby become infructuous, the Bench disposed of the appeals, leaving the petitioners free to agitate their grievances afresh if any benefit is granted at a subsequent point of time in Hem Raj's case in view of the final decision in Sanjay Kumar's case; pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.146 of 2025 a/w LPA Nos.133 and 150 of 2025 Decided on: 03.06.2025

¶3

____________________________________________________________ LPA No.146 of 2025 Hardev Singh & Others. ...Appellants Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ...Respondents
LPA No.133 of 2025 Jodh Singh & Others. ...Appellants Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ...Respondents
LPA No.150 of 2025 Tej Prakash & Others. ...Appellants Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ...Respondents
*Coram* Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1_Whether approved for reporting?_
For the appellants: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

¶4

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

¶5

The present set of Letters Patent Appeal(s) arise out of the order passed by learned Single Judge in

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

CWP No.14789 of 2024 titled as Hardev Singh & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, CWP No.14790 of 2024 titled as Jodh Singh & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others and CWP No.14797 of 2024 titled as Tej Prakash & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others and all these petitions were decided on 06.12.2024.

¶9

2. Primarily the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions as the benefit of ACP claimed on completion of 4 years of service as JBT Teacher pertained to the year 2015. The learned Single Judge noticed that

¶10

after a decade, the writ petitioners as such had filed the writ petitions and it is pertinent to notice that the petitioners are as many as 26 in the first case, 14 in the second case and 21 in the third case and cannot be their sole case as such that they were sleeping over their rights or that they were Class-IV employees, that they were not aware of their entitlement, being JBT teachers.

¶11

3. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to

¶12

the conclusion that the petitions suffer from the ailment of delay and laches and therefore, dismissed the writ petitions, on the ground that the cause of action arose in

¶13

¶14

August 2015 and that they should have approached the Court at an early stage.

¶15

4. On the last date, counsel for petitioners brought to our notice that in CWP No.12377 of 2024 titled as Hem Raj & Others versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, an order has been passed on 20.11.2024, directing consideration of 23 other writ petitions regarding the same aspect. Resultantly, we had asked the State as such to seek instructions, as to what happened regarding the decision of the said representation. The counsel for the State has placed on record an office order, whereby the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi rejected the said request on 02.06.2025, in view of the fact that the litigation is pending before the Apex Court, pertaining to the decision in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others . The relevant part of the reasoning reads as under :-

¶16

“That the petitioners are claiming the benefit of ACP on completion of 4 years of regular service in the cadre of JBT. The directions in the matter has been conveyed by the DEE HP Shimla vide their letter No.EDN-H(Ele)-IV-(B)(6)-1/2024-

¶17

¶18

Misc. Mandi (Court Cases) dated 03.12.2024 to settled the case accordingly. In this context, since the department has assailed the judgment delivered in CWPOA No.5536/2020 along with other connected matters titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors by filing SLP in the Hon’ble Apex Court and when the CWPOA 5536/2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors. Therefore, after attaining the finality in the Hon’ble Apex Court further action in the matter will be taken accordingly. Hence, the representation of the petitioner is being considered and rejected accordingly.”

¶19

5. From the above it would be clear that the issue of parity, which the petitioners were seeking for consideration also would not arise, since the State has already taken a call to keep the issue pending and has rejected the cases on account of pendency of litigation.

¶20

6. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that any cause as such which arose in the present appeals, have now become infructuous by virtue of the order passed in similarly situated cases. However, we leave it open to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances, if any benefit is granted at a subsequent

¶21

¶22

point of time in Hem Raj’s case, in view of the final decision in Sanjay Kumar’s case decided by the Apex Court.

¶23

7. It would be apparent that if the SLP is allowed then the petitioners would not be entitled for any benefit, but if the view is sustained and the State chooses to take a different view in Hem Raj’s case, then it would be open

¶24

to the petitioners to agitate for their grievances afresh.

¶25

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶26

shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

(G.S. Sandhawalia)

¶28

Chief Justice

¶29

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge