Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jhanji vs The State Of H.P. Through The on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur, Bipin Chander Negi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No. 2 of 2020
Date of Decision: 22.09.2023
Rajesh Kumar Jhanji .....Appellant.
.
Versus
The State of H.P. through the
Principal Secretary & others .....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________
For the appellant : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate,
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with
Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Additional Advocate
General.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is
agitating his claim for grant in aid payable to him for his
appointment, as a PTA Teacher in the Government School. He
further submits that admittedly petitioner was appointed on
07.04.2008 i.e. after the issuance of instructions dated 3.1.2008,
whereby PTA appointments were discontinued by the
respondent-State, however, the case of the appellant is squarely
covered not only by the judgments referred in the impugned
judgment dated 2.12.2019, passed in CWP No. 732 of 2019 in
para-2, i.e. CWP No. 2549 of 2015, titled as Hem Raj Sharma
vs. State of HP & others, decided on 07.08.2015, CWP No.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2413 of 2017, titled as Kapil Chauhan vs. State of H.P. &
others, decided on 17.04.2018 and CWP No. 533 of 2019, titled
as Surinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on
.
19.09.2019, but also in CWP No. 2642 of 2020, titled as Dinesh
Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 26.11.2020, CWP
No. 2638 of 2015, titled as Devi Saran vs. State of H.P. &
others, decided on 16.09.2016, and S. I. Roop Lal & anr vs.
Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary Delhi & others, (2000)
1 SCC 644.
2. He further submits that aforesaid all decisions could
not be brought in the notice of Learned Single Judge and
appellant intends to approach the learned Single Judge again by
referring the aforesaid and other decisions which could not be
brought in the notice of learned Single Judge at the time of
adjudication of Writ Petition and, therefore, he seeks permission
to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file appropriate Review
Petition before the learned Single Judge with a further prayer
that as appellant was pursuing his cause by filing the present
appeal, the period so spent be excluded for computation of
limitation period for filing Review Petition.
3. Accepting the prayer of learned counsel for the
appellant, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as
prayed.
4. Needless to say, as requested, time consumed in
filing and adjudicating the present LPA for pursuing the cause of
the appellant, delay and latches shall not come in his way for
.
filing the Review Petition.
5. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also
the pending application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
September 22, 2023
r to (Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
(Nisha)
