Between vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8534 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                  ON THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
                              BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA




                                                              .
                                  &





               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
               CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 6600 OF 2022





            Between:-
    SURESH KUMARI W/O SH. SANSAR
    SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MASOT,
    POST OFFICE NELATI, TEHSIL DEHRA,
    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. PIN CODE





    177104.   PRESENTLY WORKING AS
    LECTURER     POL.     SCIENCE  IN
    GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY
    SCHOOL PRAGPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA,

    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
                                                         ....PETITIONER

    (BY DINESH K. THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

            AND



    1.   STATE   OF   HIMACHAL PRADESH
         THROUGH SECRETARY (EDUCATION)
         TO THE GOVT. OF           H.P.,




         SECRETARIAT SHIMLA-2.





    2.   THE DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
         DIRECTORATE   OF    EDUCATION,
         SHIMLA-1.





    3.   DEPUTY    DIRECTOR     HIGHER
         EDUCATION      KANGRA      AT
         DHARMSHALA,  DISTRICT KANGRA,
         H.P.
                                                       ..RESPONDENTS

    (MR. ANIL JASWAL, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
    GENERAL)
    ____________________________________________________________

         This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Ms.

    Justice Sabina, passed the following:-




                                             ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:03:49 :::CIS
                                     2

                               ORDER

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.

2. 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.

3. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid

terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

                                                                (Sabina)
                                                                 Judge


    15th October, 2022                                   (Satyen Vaidya)
         (kck)                                                 Judge