Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Diwakar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And
2022 Latest Caselaw 3434 HP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3434 HP
Judgement Date : 17 May, 2022

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Diwakar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Sandeep Sharma
     IN   THE   HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL          PRADESH, SHIMLA

                   ON THE 17th DAY OF MAY, 2022

                              BEFORE




                                                         .
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ





                           CHIEF JUSTICE
                                  &

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA





                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.407 of 2022
    Between:

    MR. SANJAY KUMAR SON OF SH.





    DIWAKAR, VILLAGE JAMOG, P.O.
    JUNI, TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTRICT
    SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                                       ....PETITIONER
    (BY MR. BALWANT SINGH THAKUR,
    ADVOCATE)


    AND
    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
       THROUGH     ITS    SECRETARY
       (HEALTH),       TO       THE


       GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
       PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.
    2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND
       FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,




       S.D.A.COMPLEX,    KASUMPATI,
       SHIMLA-171009, H.P.





                                               ......RESPONDENTS.

    (MR. VIKAS RATHORE,      ADDITIONAL





    ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.408 of 2022
    Between:

    MR. SANJEEV KUMAR SON OF LATE
    KEWAL RAM, VILLAGE KHARALU, P.O.
    DANAWALI, TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT
    SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                                       ....PETITIONER
    (BY MR. BALWANT SINGH THAKUR,
    ADVOCATE)




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2022 20:04:57 :::CIS
                                           2




    AND
    1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
       THROUGH     ITS    SECRETARY




                                                                   .
       (HEALTH),       TO       THE





       GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
       PRADESH, SHIMLA-171002.

    2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND





       FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
       S.D.A.COMPLEX,    KASUMPATI,
       SHIMLA-171009, H.P.

                                                         ......RESPONDENTS.





    (MR. VIKAS RATHORE,                ADDITIONAL
    ADVOCATE GENERAL)

          This petition coming on for admission before notice this day,

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, passed the following:

                 ORDER

By way of instant petitions filed under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for

following reliefs:-

"1. That respondent department may very kindly be

directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the completion of 8 years i.e.

2006 of daily wage services with all consequential benefits being squarely covered by judgment CWP No.406 of 2021 titled as Radha Rani versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

2. That the service rendered by the present petitioner after completion of 8 years may very

kindly be counted for the purpose of the seniority and increments with all consequential benefits."

2. Though, despite sufficient opportunities, no reply

.

has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, but an

application, seeking therein extension of time to file reply on

behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is stated to have been filed,

but the same is also not on record. Registry to trace and place

the same on record.

3. Copy of the application, as detailed hereinabove,

made available to this Court by Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned

Additional Advocate General, reveals that cases of the

petitioners have been referred to the Government for seeking

necessary directions/approval after getting it examined at

Government level by the Directorate of Health vide letter

dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure R-1). It would be profitable to

take note of aforesaid communication dated 13th May, 2022

herein:-

" It is added that the present petitioner, Sh. Sanjeev

Kumar, was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the Department in the year 1998 and had completed 8

years of his services in the year 2006 and subsequently his services were regularized in the year 2008 under the uniform policy instructions of the Government dated 09.09.2008. The above named official has now raised his claim on the analogy of Smt. Radha Rani, respective petitioner in CWP No.406 of 2021, being wexactly same and similar to her, for regularization of his services after the completion of 8

years daily waged services in the year 2006 with all consequential benefits.

Further, it is submitted that the above referred case, CWP No.408 of 2012 is pending adjudication and decision before the Hon'ble Court for reply/instructions.

.

However, since the claim by the petitioner has been raised similarly on the analogy of Smt. Radha Rani and further since the facts of the case of Smt. Radha Rani

i.e. the respective petitioner in CWP No.406 of 2021, are same and similar to the facts of the case of the present petitioner, it is humbly requested to kindly get his case also examined at Government level as to

whether the present petitioner is also entitled for the same and similar benefits, or not.

You are humbly requested to kindly expedite the decision/directions in the matter, so as to proceed

further in the matter accordingly, being a Court matter

please."

4. It is quite apparent from the bare reading of

aforesaid communication that Director Health Services,

Himachal Pradesh after having examined the matter has

categorically apprised the Principal Secretary (Health) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh that since petitioners have

raised their claim on the analogy of Smt. Radha Rani and

the facts of the case of Smt. Radha Rani are same and similar

to the facts of the case of the petitioners, matter required to

be examined at the Government level.

5. While referring to the aforesaid communication,

learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners

would be content and satisfied in case necessary directions

are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case

of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by

Division Bench of this Court in Radha Rani vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh and another, passed in CWP No.406 of 2021,

.

decided on 10th August, 2021 expeditiously.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse

to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the

petitioners.

7. Consequently, in view of the above, without going

into the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petitions

with the directions to the respondents to consider and decide

the case of the petitioners in the light of the Radha Rani

case(supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four

weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the

needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of

being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order

thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file

appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they

still remain aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

of.

(Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 17th May, 2022 (shankar)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter