Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Chhape Ram vs State Of H.P. And Others on 5 March, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M) No. 1317 of 2019
& LPA No. 55 of 2018
.
Decided on: 05.03.2021
CMP(M) No. 1317 of 2019
Sh. Chhape Ram .......Appellant.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. ......Respondents
Durga Devi and others
r to
LPA No. 55 of 2018
.......Appellants.
Versus
State of H.P. and others. ......Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellants: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista,
Advocate for the
appellant/applicant in CMP(M)
No. 1317 of 2019 and for
respondent No. 24 in LPA No.
55 of 2018 and Mr. Shashi
Shirshoo, Advocate for the
appellants in LPA No. 55 of
2018.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G with
Ms. Ritta Goswami, Addl. A.G,
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Addl. A.G
and Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Dy. A.G
for the State.
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2021 20:20:46 :::HCHP
2
Mr. Tek Chand Sharma,
Advocate for respondents No.
6, 8 and 16.
.
Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate for
respondents No. 3 to 5, 7, 9 to
15 and 18 to 23 in both the
appeals.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
These two appeals have been filed against the
common order passed by learned Single Judge on 01.05.2017 in
Civil Writ Petition No. 2259 of 2013 titled as Amar Chand and
others vs. State of H.P and others, in which the official
respondents were directed to confer the whole time status upon
the appellants, respondents herein, strictly in the light of the
directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 3310 of 2011 within a
period of six weeks.
2. The apprehension of the appellants is that they were
regularized, and after regularization, they sought for some
substantial time, and at this juncture, in view of the said
judgment, there is threat of reviewing their seniority, hence they
have preferred these appeals.
3. While arguing, we have asked as to whether the
appellants have taken such contentions in the writ petition and it
is found from record that no reply has been filed though the
appellants have submitted that they have adopted the
submissions of the respondent-State. Even to that effect, there is
no reference in the order and also no memo to that effect has
been filed.
.
4. Be that as it may, it is presumed that while
complying with the order passed on 1st May, 2017 in case, if it is
not complied with till today, these appellants are going to be
affected or any affected party shall be given an opportunity of
being heard and thereafter appropriate orders be passed. It is
seen from the impugned judgment that six weeks time was
granted on 01.05.2017 and probably the respondents must have
complied with it, but in case if it is not complied, an opportunity
should be given before complying with the same by issuing
necessary memo or notice.
5. With these observations, both these appeals are
disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
( L. Narayana Swamy )
Chief Justice
March 05, 2021 ( Anoop Chitkara )
(naveen) Judge
