Decided On: October 12 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16206 HP

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                CWP No. 7659 of 2023
                                          Decided on: October 12, 2023
    ________________________________________________________
    Suresh Kumar                                     ........... Petitioner




                                                                                .
                                   Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                .. Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1

    For the Petitioner                     :      Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocate.

    For the respondents                    :
                                  Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General
                                  with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal





                                  Panwar and       Mr. B.C. Verma,
                                  Additional Advocates General & Mr.
                                  Ravi Chauhan & Ms. Sunaina,
                                  Deputy Advocates General.
    ________________________________________________________

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution

of India, the Petitioner have prayed for following main reliefs:

"That the respondent-State may kindly be ordered to count the entire contract service of the petitioner for the purpose of annual

increments as well as pensionary benefits as per the judgments cited supra."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the issue

raised in the instant petition has been decided by this Court vide

judgment dated 26.12.2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi v. State Of HP

And Ors (CWPOA No. 195 of 2019), and Jagdish Chand v. State of

Himachal Pradesh & Others CWP No. 2411 of 2019 and other

connected matters decided on 10.1.2020, and his client shall be

content and satisfied, in case a direction is issued to the respondents

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

to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Sheela Devi

and Jagdish Chand 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 Petitioner.

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

with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of

the petitioner in light of Sheela Devi and Jagdish Chand supra, within

a period of four 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 he still remains aggrieved.

5. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all

pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge October 12, 2023 Vikrant