Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vidya Prakash vs The Municipal Corporation on 23 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 7684 of 2023 with
CWP Nos. 4128 of 2019, 2094 of 2020,
CWP Nos. 9272, 9296, 9408,
9556,9558,9614, 10493, 10859 of 2023,
CWP Nos. 26, 175, 450, 1567, 3747, 3964,
6297, 9205, 9443,9835,9841,9843, 12283,
12483, 12999,13011,13083, 13239, 13241,
13501, 13502, 13549, 13554, 13573,13593,
13595, 13597, 14313, 14913,15139, 15377,
15557, 16241 of 2024 & CWP Nos.101,
185,393,395,595 and 4667 of 2025
Date of Decision: 23.04.2025
_______________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 7684 of 2023
Vidya Prakash .......Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Corporation, Shimla. ... Respondent
______________________________________________________
Kesar Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Narinder Paul .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Manoj Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Pankaj & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Pusp Raj and others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary Higher Education & Anr ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Hem Lata and others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary Higher Education & Anr ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Birender Singh Guleria & others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary Higher Education & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Partap Singh & others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary Higher Education & Anr ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Vijay Kumar & others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Budh Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Chhatar Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Ravi Kumar and others .......Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary Higher Education & Anr ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Suraj Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Narender Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Manglu Ram .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Vikas Sidhu .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Ajay Thakur .......Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL and others ... Respondents
Kala Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Sohan Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Sanjeev Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Virender Dogra .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Mala Thapa .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Dushyant Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Mahavir Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Lottam Ram and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Vijay Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Balbir Singh and another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Divyangna Chauhan .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Kartar Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Balam Singh and another .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Jyoti Prakash .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Neelma Kumari .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Narender Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Salil Sood and another .......Petitioners
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Anamika Kanoongo .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Ankush .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Shabeena Anjum .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Nikhil Patiyal .......Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & another
... Respondents
Arun Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Ramesh Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Ramana Devi .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Sunil Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Prem Parkash .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Sunita Chauhan .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Praveen Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Nisha Thakur .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Ajay Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & another ... Respondents
Atul Dogra .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Babita
Chauhan, Mr. Jagan Nath, Mr. Vivek Negi,
Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr.
Raj Kumar, Mr. Sunny Datwalia, Mr. Rajeev
Sood, Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, Mr.
Abhay Kaushal, Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma,
Mr. Sunil Awasthi, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr.
Devender K. Sharma, Mr. Aashish Kumar,
Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Mr.Narender
Guleria , Mr. Sat Prakash, Mr. M.A.Safee,
Mr. Pranav Kumar Kaushal, Ms. Tamanna
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Rana, Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Mr. Dheeraj
Kanwar, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Narender
Singh Thakur, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel,
Advocates for the petitioners in the
respective petitions.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate, for the
respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla.
Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Mr. Prashant Sharma
and Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar and Mr.
Anil Kumar, Advocates, for the respondents
in the respective petitions.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and
Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate
Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General for the respondents/
State.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in
the above captioned petitions and similar reliefs have been claimed,
all these matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide
this common judgment.
2. By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for
the reliefs, which are similar, as such, relief prayed for in CWP No.
7684 of 2023 is reproduced herein below:-
"a) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondent by way of issuance of writ of mandamus
to consider the petitioner as having been appointed
against the post of Saffai Karamchari Class-IV
pursuant to office order dated 28.08.2018 on regular
basis for all intents and purpose and further this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing the word 'contract' from the
appointment letter, dated 28.08.2018 Annexure P-2
and granting him regularization from the date of his
initial appointment i.e. 28.08.2018;
b) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to
pay to the petitioner all the emoluments as he is
entitled a regular employee in the establishment of
respondent corporation w.e.f. petitioner's date of
appointment i.e. 28.08.2018 with all consequential
benefits including counting the period for the purpose
of seniority etc."
3. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be
received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting
attention of this Court to judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi Vs.
Himachal Pradesh University., in CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as
Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and in
CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh & Ors., state that issue raised in the instant
proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) and
as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case they are
permitted to make representations to the competent authority for
redressal of their grievance, with the direction to the respondents to
decide the same in a time bound manner.
4. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents,
Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states
that representations, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered
and decided expeditiously.
5. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the
petitions, which are duly supported by the affidavits vis-à-vis
judgments sought to be relied upon, there appears to be merit in the
contention of learned counsel representing the parties that issue
otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already
stands adjudicated in afore cases, which otherwise stands
implemented, as is evident from order dated 08.01.2025 passed by
Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. If it is so, there is
otherwise no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioners to issue direction to the respondents to consider and
decide their representations in time bound manner.
6. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted
by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court deems it fit to
dispose of the present petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to
file representations to the competent authority within a period of ten
days, praying therein for consideration of their cases in light of
judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi,
Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) which in turn, shall be
decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks.
Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while
doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
April 23, 2025
(shankar)
