Sunita Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

“(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as Class-IV employee on the analogy of Smt. Brindla Devi, Shakuntla Devi and Neema Devi, as per Annexure P-8, with all consequential benefits.”

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶17

-2-

¶18

In the aforesaid backdrop, attention of this Court is

¶19

invited to order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure R2/4) filed along with the reply of respondents No.2 and 3. A perusal of order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure R-2/4) reflects that in pursuance to an order dated 29.03.2018, passed by this Court in CWP No.610 of 2018, titled Sunita Devi Vs. State of HP and

¶20

Others , the Commissioner(Temple)-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP had decided the representation dated 22.01.2018 filed by the present petitioner. Operative part of the order reads as follows:-

¶21

“Now since as per Govt. Instructions issued vide letter No.Per (A)-C-B(2)-1/2014 dated 19.06.2017 regularization is to be done after five years. In the light of these instructions the repesentationist will qualify for regularization on 26.5.2019 after completion of 5 years as a daily wager. All above employees working on compassionate ground would also be regularized after completion of tenure required for their regularization. Now, in view of above discussions I am of the considered view that the claim of the representionist is not as per instructions in vogue for regularization, hence same is rejected.”

¶22

-3-

¶23

From the aforesaid, it is evident that in terms of

¶24

the aforesaid order, the services of the petitioner were to be regularized on 26.05.2019, after the completion of 5 years as daily wager.

¶25

The petition in the case at hand was filed on 31.08.2018. Hence, it appears that during the pendency of the present petition, in terms of order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure R-2/4) passed by the Commissioner(Temples)cum-DC, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, the services of the petitioner would have been regularized. The fact that none appeared on behalf of the petitioner, makes it further evident that the services of the petitioner, in terms of order dated 25.05.2018 (Annexure R-2/4) would have been regularized.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶27

07^th March, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

¶28

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

Sunita Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Secretary, Rural Development and Anr. Vs Milkhi Ram and Anr.

Dilshad @ Rashid Vs State of Hp

Pooja Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Gopal Singh Vs State of Hp

Neelam Kumari Vs State of Hp

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others