Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jatinder Sharma And Others vs State Of H.P & Another on 24 September, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ex. Pet. Nos.679 of 2024 and
connected matters.
Decided on: 24th September, 2024
_________________________________________________________________
.
1. Ex. Pet. No. 679 of 2024
Jatinder Sharma and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
2. Ex. Pet. No. 680 of 2024
Suman Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Dinesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Vipal Mahajan and others
....Petitioners
.
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mandeep Singh and others
....Petitioners
r Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Ramesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Rajeev Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Sanjeev Kumar and others
....Petitioners
.
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Vinod Sharma and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Hardev Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Varinder Pal Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Pushp Raj and others
.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Pawan Kumar and others
r ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Rajeshwer Negi and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Prakash Chand and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Vishal Kuamr and others
.
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Sanjay Kumar and others
r ....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Surya Vir Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Rajneesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Vipan Kumar and others
....Petitioners
.
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P & Another.
...Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reporting?
____________________________________________________________
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Parav Sharma and
Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates,
in all the petitions.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, in all the petitions.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioners had alleged non-compliance of the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
judgments in question. Ex. Pet. No. 679 of 2024, originates
from decision rendered in CWP No. 2481 of 2024. The
operative part of the judgment dated 22.03.2024, rendered in
.
CWP No. 2481 of 2024 (Jatinder Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of
H.P. & Ors), reads as under: -
"6. Accordingly, the instant petitions are disposed of with
direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide
the case of the petitioners within eight weeks
from today strictly in terms of the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 4th
October, 2019, in LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled as
State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ravinder Kumar, along
with connected matters, by passing a detailed
and reasoned order. Needless to say that in case the
petitioners are is found entitled to the benefits of
aforesaid judgment, they shall be granted all similar
benefits as have been granted to the beneficiary of
judgment passed in LPA No.21 of 2013 within six
weeks thereafter. It is clarified that monetary benefits,
if any, available to the petitioners shall be restricted to
a period of three years only immediately preceding the
date of filing of instant petitions. Pending applications,
if any, also stand disposed of."
Ex. Pet No. 686 of 2024 finds its origin in the
decision rendered in CWP No. 2038 of 2024. The operative
part of the judgment dated 15.03.2024, rendered in CWP No.
2034 of 2024 (Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P.
and others) reads as under:-
"2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the cases of the petitioners are covered by the decision
of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 21 of
.
2013, titled as State of HP & others vs. Ravinder
Kumar, decided on 4.10.2019, alongwith connected
matters.
3. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to consider and decide the
cases of the petitioners in terms of the decision of this
Court in Ravinder Kumar's case supra, expeditiously,
preferably within eightweeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of."
All the writ petitions giving rise to these execution
petitions were disposed of in terms of above decisions.
2. On being put to notice in all the matters, learned
Additional Advocate General has placed on record
instructions dated 23.09.2024, issued from the office of the
Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh. In terms of
these instructions, respective cases of the petitioners have
been considered and decided vide a detailed speaking order
passed on 23.09.2024. A copy of order dated 23.09.2024 has
also been appended alongwith the instructions. The
operative part of the order reads as under:-
"In view of the submissions mentioned above, it
is submitted that the ratio of the judgment dated
04.10.2019, passed in LPA No.21/2013, titled as State
of H.P. and others Vs. Ravinder Kumar alongwith
.
connected matters is not similar to the case of the
present petitioners and as such the matter of the
petitioners regarding their regularization from the initial
date of appointment on contract basis is considered and
same is rejected accordingly."
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that consideration order passed by the respondents
4. to
on 23.09.2024 is not in accordance with law.
If that is the case, petitioners are at liberty to
assail the consideration order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the all the execution petitions are disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
to stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
September 24, 2024
R.Atal
