Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 14Th November vs State Of H.P. And Another on 14 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2024:HHC:11348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.7470 of 2024
Decided on: 14th November, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gulzari Lal Rana .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate vice
Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional
Advocate General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The respondents have not filed reply, however,
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard at this stage.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"A. That the act and conduct of the respondents of offering
appointment to the petitioner to the post of TGT on
contract basis instead of giving regular appointment as
per R&P Rule on vogue at the time of initiation of the
recruitment process, may kindly be declared illegal,
unconstitutional and in violation to the R&P Rule.
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2024:HHC:11348
B. That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider
the service of the petitioner as TGT (Arts) on regular
basis along with all consequential benefits as per the
provisions of the "Himachal Pradesh Education
Department Class-III (School and Inspection Cadre)
Services Rules, 1973" since the date of their initial
joining on contract basis.
C. That the respondents may kindly be released the entire
consequential benefits along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of their joining to till the date of
realization.
D. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the
same benefits to the petitioners as the respondents in
LPA No.54/2013 and LPA No.500/2013 and the
petitioners in the Civil Writ Petition No.414/2014,
416/2014 and 417/2014 and in Civil Writ Petition
No.9135 of 2023 titled as Anil Kumar & Others versus
State of Himachal Pradesh has been held entitled by
this Hon'ble Court."
3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs
prayed for by him have already been considered &
adjudicated upon by this Court in State of H.P. and
others Versus Om Prakash2. Learned vice counsel for the
petitioner also submits that a representation preferred by
the petitioner (Annexure P/4) for claiming the above reliefs
is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned vice
counsel further submits that the petitioner would be
content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are
directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a
LPA No.54 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019
2024:HHC:11348
fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is
not averse to this prayer.
4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but
without examining the merits of the matter, this writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/
competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid
representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/4) in
accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the
above judgment in the case of Om Prakash2 within a period
of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall
also be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
November 14, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
