Vipin Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Advocate General and Ms. Bhupender Pathania, learned counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respective respondents. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage.

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

2. The Facts.

¶20

2(i). Petitioner’s case is that his father Sh. Duni Chand was serving as Pujari in respondent Baba Balak Nath Temple. In view of medical problems faced by Sh. Duni Chand, petitioner was engaged on compassionate grounds, initially as Miscellaneous Worker on 18.05.1994 and later as Pujari on daily wage basis. Services of the petitioner were regularized as Pujari on 01.04.2001.

¶21

2(ii) After creation of Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, a dispute arose between certain employees of the aforesaid temple vis-a vis service Rules being applied to them. The dispute was resolved under a compromise arrived at on 19.09.1994 between respondent No.3 and representatives of the employees. In terms of the compromise, the employees, who were not eligible as per the service Rules, were allowed to continue and Rule 9.1 of 1991 Service Rules was accordingly amended vide Annexure P-2.

¶22

2(iii) Petitioner has laid emphasis that his services had been engaged on compassionate grounds prior to the aforesaid compromise and, therefore, the eligibility conditions laid down under the service Rules were not applicable to him.

¶23

3

¶24

2(iv) Grievance of the petitioner pertains to

¶25

promotion to the post of Head Pujari. According to the petitioner, respondents are not considering his case for promotion to the post of Head Pujari on the ground that in terms of the applicable Rules, petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criteria of being in possession of educational qualifications ‘Shastri’.

¶26

3. Petitioner is a matriculate. He places reliance upon promotion of two incumbents namely S/Sh Rakesh Rattan and Parkash Chand, who though were not in possession of Shastri degree, but had been promoted as Head Pujari. Petitioner has also placed on record a copy of decision rendered in Parkash Chand Vs. State of H.P. &

¶27

Others² . It is his case that pursuant to the directions issued in Parkash Chand² , respondents had considered the case of the aforesaid employee and promoted him as Head Pujari even though the employee did not have ‘Shastri’ degree.

¶28

Petitioner, who is stated to be at Serial No.1 in

¶29

the seniority list of Pujaries, seeks similar treatment qua his promotion to the post of Head Pujari and has

¶30

2 COPC No.7680 of 2024 decided on 07.01.2025

¶31

4

¶32

accordingly filed this writ petition for grant of following

¶33

substantive relief.

¶34

“(i) That the impugned acts of the respondents, which amounts to executive inaction may kindly be quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents to immediately and forthwith consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head Pujari on and with effect from 1.2.2026 when the post of Head Pujari fell vacant, particularly in view of earlier precedence's referred above and orders of the respondents themselves, with the consequential benefits. of pay, seniority etc. etc.”

¶35

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶36

considered the case record.

¶37

5. In view of the pleadings and the documents

¶38

placed on record, more particularly, petitioner’s contention of him being discriminated vis-à-vis S/Sh.Rakesh Rattan and Parkash Chand in the matter of promotion from the post of Pujari to that of Head Pujari, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondents No.2 and 3 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Head Pujari of the respondent-Temple. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to represent to respondents No.2 and 3/Competent Authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in this writ petition within one week. In

¶39

5

¶40

case such representation is so made, the same shall be considered and decided by respondents No. 2 and 3/Competent Authority within two weeks thereafter, in accordance with law and also keeping in view the previous similar cases. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.

¶42

Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 02, 2026 Judge R.Atal

Vipin Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalini Thakur Vs State of Hp

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp

Mukesh Sharma Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd.

Roshan Lal Vs the Hptdcl and Another

Amar Singh Vs Hrtc and Others

Balak Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others