Abhishek Chauhan And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15878 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7495 of 2023 Date of Decision: October 10, 2023 _______________________________________________________

.

Abhishek Chauhan and others .......Petitioners

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ... Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinod Chauhan and Ms. Anchal Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocates General.

_______________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the

following main reliefs:

"That the respondents may very kindly be directed to count the

services of the petitioners rendered on contract basis for the purpose of seniority, increment, promotion and other consequential/financial

benefits in terms of the latest judgment passed by this Hon'ble Apex Court in Direct recruit case 1990 SC Vol 2 Page 715 as well as by

this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2004/2017."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue raised

in the present petition is squarely covered by order dated 3.8.2023

passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017

titled Taj Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and

his clients shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioners

in light of Taj Mohammad supra, in a time bound manner.

3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General is not

.

averse to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of

by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the

petitioners in light of Taj Mohammad supra, within a period of six

weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful

in terms of this order, shall afford opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners and pass a speaking order thereafter. Liberty is reserved

to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of

law, if they still remain aggrieved.

In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of

alongwith pending application(s), if any.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge October 10, 2023 (vikrant)