Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 1 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.1431 of 2024
Decided on: 1st March, 2024
.
__________________________________________________________
Anil Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitionersr : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice
on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant
writ petition, is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in
view of the order(s) intended to be passed herein.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
3. The petitioner have filed the instant writ
petition, with the following prayers:-
i) "That the respondents may kindly be directed to
.
grant the benefit of bunching of increments
earned by the petitioner during his adhoc
services and fix his pay accordingly with all
consequential benefits by issuing a writ of
mandamus.
ii) That the respondents may further be directed to
release the arrear of salary accrued on account
of granting of benefit of bunching of increments
alongwith interest @ 12% from the due date by
issuing a writ of mandamus.
4. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the
petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Basic
Teachers on 30.09.1989 on adhoc basis. His service was
regularized on 30.09.1999 as stated in the writ petition.
The petitioner has also retired from service on
31.08.2018.
5. By way of the instant writ petition, the
petitioner is claiming the benefit of adhoc service towards
bunching increment in terms of the mandate of this
Court in CWP(OA) No.7531 of 2019, titled as Madan Lal
& ors. versus State of Himachal Pradesh & anr.,
decided on 30.12.2022 (Annexure P-2)
6. The case record reveals that the petitioner has
.
approached this Court, seeking the benefit of adhoc
service towards bunching increment, in view of the
judgment in the case of Madan Lal (supra) but without
ventilating his grievance before the appropriate authority
as required by law, which is necessary for invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions, prays for and is granted
ten days time to make representation before the
Respondent No.2-Director, Elementary Education,
Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; with further directions to
aforesaid respondent to consider/examine the
representation of the petitioner the light of judgment
passed by this Court in the case of Madan Lal (supra);
and then to pass the appropriate orders, within six weeks
thereafter.
8. Needless to say that, this Court has not
adverted to the merits of the matter and all questions of
facts and law are left open.
.
As aforesaid, the instant writ petition, as well
as, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
March 01, 2024
(himani)
