Kangra vs Pradesh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 8586 HP

                                 1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                ON THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                              BEFORE




                                                        .

                     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA

                                 &





               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

                CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.6601 of 2022





         Between:-

         BHARTI KUMARI SOOD,
         D/O SH. KISHORI LAL SOOD,
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST OFFICE,

         PRAGPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT

         KANGRA, H.P. PIN CODE 177107. PRESENTLY
         WORKING AS LECTURER ECONOMICS IN
         GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY
         SCHOOL (B) PRAGPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA,
         DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.                ......PETITIONER



         (BY MR. RAJESH VERMA, ADVOCATE
         ON BEHALF OF MR. DINESH THAKUR,
         ADVOCATE)




         AND





    1.   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH
         ITS SECRETARY (EDUCATION) H.P.
         SECRETARIAT SHIMLA-2.





    2.   DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
         DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION,
         SHIMLA-1.
    4.   DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION
         KANGRA AT DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT
         KANGRA, H.P.                   ......RESPONDENTS

         (BY MR. ANIL JASWAL, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
         GENERAL)
    ___________________________________________________




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2022 20:03:07 :::CIS
                                           2




          This Petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble

    Ms. Justice Sabina, passed the following:

                              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.

3. 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, so also

the pending application(s), if any.

( Sabina ) Judge

( Satyen Vaidya) Judge October 17, 2022 (ks)