Between vs Pradesh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6577 HP

                                      1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                      ON THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST, 2022




                                                                 .
                                  BEFORE





                      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
                                      &





                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
                   CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2132 of 2022





          Between:-
          KAMLESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT
          52 YEARS, S/O SH. ROOP SINGH,
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMLRETI,

          P.O. CHHUT, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
          HIMACHAL PRADESH.

                                                                ....PETITIONER

          (BY MR. KUL BHSUAN KHAJURIA,
          ADVOCATE)



          AND
    1.    STATE OF H.P. THROUGH     ITS




          SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE
          GOVERNMENT OF H.P., SHIMLA-2.
    2.    THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER





          EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF
          H.P., SHIMLA-1.
                                                           ....RESPONDENTS





          (MR. VIKRANT CHANDEL,
          DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
    Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:
                            ORDER

Notice. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue in

question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in CWP

.

No.1853 of 2009-D, titled as Arpana Bali vs. The State of Himachal

Pradesh and others, decided on 10th April, 2013 and the said

judgment, in turn, stands implemented by the respondents. This is a

matter, which is required to be considered by the employer.

3. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a

direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the

petitioner in light of the averments made in this petition and, more

particularly, the judgment rendered in Arpana Bali's case, which stands

implemented. Needful be done within four weeks and in case the

petitioner is similarly situated to Arpana Bali's case, then consequential

action be taken within two weeks.

(Sabina) Judge

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge August 01, 2022(ps/vh)