Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. And Ors vs Sunita on 6 March, 2023
Bench: Sabina, Acting Justice, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7498 of 2022
.
Decided on: 06.03.2023
State of H.P. and ors.
....Petitioners.
Versus
Sunita
...Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sabina, Acting Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta,
Additional Advocate
General.
For the respondent : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
Sabina, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Petitioners-State has filed the petition
challenging the order dated 13.11.2018, passed by the
Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, whereby
Original Application filed by the respondent was
disposed of.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate
General as well as learned counsel for the respondent
and have gone through the record available on the file
.
carefully.
3. Operative part of the order dated
13.11.2018, passed by the Tribunal, reads as under:-
"6. In view of the above, the original application is
disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgment
in CWP No. 5799 of 2014, with a direction to the
respondents/competent authority that subject to the
above verification and on finding the applicant to be
similarly situate as above, benefit of the said
judgment, if the same has attained finality/
implemented, shall also be extended to her alongwith
consequential benefits, if any, as per law, within three
months from the date of production of certified copy
of this order before the said authority by the
applicant."
4. In pursuance to the above order,
petitioners-State has passed the order, dated
19.06.2019, Annexure P-2, whereby the case of the
respondent for regularization was rejected.
5. Operative part of the order dated
19.06.2019, Annexure P-2, reads as under:-
"Now therefore, taking into consideration the entire
facts and circumstances of this case and since the
services of applicant has rightly been regularised as
per the decision of Cabinet Himachal Pradesh
.
Government, as such her claim is legally
unsustainable. In fact, the applicant is Nepali Origin
and claimed parity of judgment dated 02.04.2025
passed by Hon'ble High Court of H.P. in CWP No.
5799 of 2014, titled Budh Bahadur Vs. State of H.P.
and ors.. The respondent-department against
judgment dated 02.04.2015 passed in Bahadur
case has filed LPA before the Hon'ble High Court of
H.P. Recently this LPA was listed before the Hon'ble
High Court of H.P. On 05.11.2018 when the same
was disposed of on the request of Mr. Ajay Vaidya,
learned Senior Additional Advocate General, H.P.
and further the direction has been passed to State of
H.P. to file Review Petition against judgment dated
02.04.2015. Thereafter, review petition has been
listed in the Hon'ble High Court which is still
pending, As such, the judgment dated 02.04.2015
has not attained finality. Therefore, in view of the
above as the applicant has rightly been considered
for regularization in accordance with decision of
Cabinet Govt. of H.P. on 24.09.2016, as such her
representation is considered and rejected."
6. Petitioners-Department had complied with
the order passed by the Tribunal and after considering
the case of the respondent has passed the order dated
19.06.2019, Annexure P-2. In this situation, the
aggrieved party can be said to be the respondent and
not the petitioners-Department. It is not
understandable, as to why, the petitioners-Department
.
has preferred the writ petition after duly complying
with the order dated 13.11.2018, passed by the
Tribunal. In fact, it is the respondent, who was the
aggrieved party after the dismissal of her
7.
r to
representation by the Department, vide order dated
19.06.2019, Annexure P-2.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(Sabina)
Acting Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya)
6th March, 2023 Judge
(sushma)
