Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prem Prakash Amrate vs State Of H.P. And Another on 20 November, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
2024:HHC:11810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.13116 of 2024 alongwith
connected matters
Decided on: 20th November, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.13116 of 2024
Prem Prakash Amrate .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.13117 of 2024
Dalip Singh and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalip Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alok Janveja .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024:HHC:11810
Virender Singh Rajta .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jai Lal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma and
Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matters are heard at this stage.
3. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant
of almost identical reliefs. The substantive relief in CWP
No.13116 of 2024 reads as under:-
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2024:HHC:11810
"(A) That the respondent authority be directed to count
entire services rendered by the petitioner on contract
basis, from the date of his initial appointment followed
by his regularization, for the purpose of annual
increments, seniority and all other consequential service
benefits, arising therefrom in terms of judgment passed
in "CWP/2204/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad & Ors.Vs
State of HP & Ors." And CWPOA/3282/2019 titled as
Dr Ranjit Singh Thakur and others Vs State of HP and
ors."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the respective cases of the petitioners and the reliefs
prayed for by them have already been considered &
adjudicated upon by this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad
and others Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and
others2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits
that the representations preferred by the petitioners,
annexed with the respective writ petitions as Annexure P-7,
for claiming the above reliefs are pending consideration
with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioners would be content in case respondent
No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the
aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule.
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the
respondents are not averse to consider the respective cases
of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment,
CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023
2024:HHC:11810
however, all rights and contentions of the parties be left
open for decision.
5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but
without examining the merits of the matter, these writ
petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent
No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the
aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance
with law as well as taking into consideration the above
judgment in the case of Taj Mohammad2 within a period of
six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also
be communicated to the petitioners.
It is clarified that all rights and contentions of
the parties are left open.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
November 20, 2024 Judge
Mukesh
