About 51 Years vs Pradesh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3529 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                ON THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2022




                                                             .
                              BEFORE





            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA, JUDGE
                               &
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JUDGE





             CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2669 of 2022

    BETWEEN:

    BHARTI VERMA W/O SH. PADAM VERMA, AGED





    ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE JAGATKHANA, P.O.
    KHARGA, TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
    PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER (HINDI) IN
    GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL KASHOLI, TEHSIL
    NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.


                                               ........PETITIONER


    (BY SHRI RAJ KUMAR NEGI AND MS. SHEENAM NEGI
    ADVOCATES)


                      AND

    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH
          ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO




          THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P., SHIMLA-2.





    2.    DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION,
          GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
          SHIMLA-171001.





                                               .........RESPONDENTS


    (BY SHRI RANJAN SHARMA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
    GENERAL)
    ____________________________________________________________




                                            ::: Downloaded on - 18/05/2022 20:06:16 :::CIS
                 This petition coming on for admission before notice, this

    day Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following :-




                                                                .
                             ORDER

Notice. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned Additional

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.

4. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

For compliance, to come up on 30.06.2022.

.

(Sabina) Judge

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 18th May, 2022 (sushma)

r to