Cwp No.8682/2025 vs State Of H.P. And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 6012 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Cwp No.8682/2025 vs State Of H.P. And Anr on 26 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 8682 of 2025 a/w connected matters Decided on: 26th May, 2025

1. CWP No.8682/2025

Manoj Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

2. CWP No.8684/2025

Kuldeep Chand .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

3. CWP No.8686/2025

Kunti Devi .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

4. CWP No.8688/2025

Devinder Paul .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

5. CWP No.8690/2025

Dharam Pal .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

Shareshta Devi .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents

Bhanu .....Petitioner

Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dheeraj Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents in all the petitions.

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 common substantive reliefs. Relief clause

herein is extracted from CWP No. 8682/2025:­:­

" a. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to treat the contractual appointment/

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

service of the petitioner as Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) w.e.f. 23.01.2004 as regular service with all consequential benefits and thus consequential modify/quash the order dated order dated 23.01.2004 Annexure 20.08.2020 accordingly. P­1, as well Annexure as P­2.

b. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing the Respondent to give the benefit of regular service to the Petitioner with effect from the initial dates of their appointment on contractual terms (i.e. 23.01.2004) with all consequential benefits for all intents and purposes alongwith interest.

c. Consequentialy issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, directing the respondent to consider the service of the petitioners to be reckoned for seniority and for all terminal benefits as and when they fall due and pay of the petitioner accordingly be fixed. d. Accordingly Issue A writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court. deems fit, directing the Respondent to pay arrears of salary payable to the Petitioner on regular basis w.e.f. 23.01.2004 and be computed and paid over to them within one month from the date of the order along with interest and all consequential benefits. e. In Alternative Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts circumstance of the case and by directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 08.07.2024 in terms of the law as well as the Judgment dated 22.08.2022 in CWP NO. 1077/2019 (Nitin Kumar vs State of HP), within a time bound manner."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted

that the respective cases of the petitioner(s) and the reliefs

prayed for by them are squarely covered in terms of the

decision rendered in Nitin Kumar Versus State of H.P. &

Anr.2. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners'

representation(s), annexed with the respective petitions,

have still not been decided by the respondents/competent

authority. Learned counsel also submitted that the

petitioner(s) would be satisfied, in case, they are permitted

to file fresh representation(s) to the respondents/competent

authority, whereafter the said respondents/competent

authority be directed to consider and decide the

representation(s) of the petitioner(s), to be made by them,

within time bound schedule, keeping in view the above

decision. Learned Additional Advocate General has no

objection to this prayer.

5. Having regard to the afore­submissions, but

without examining the merits of the matters, these writ

petitions are disposed of by permitting the petitioner(s) to

make fresh representation(s) to the respondents/competent

authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who

shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance

with law and keeping in view the above judgment in the

case of Nitin Kumar2 within a period of six weeks from

today. The decision so arrived at shall also be

communicated to the petitioner(s).

CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2022

These writ petitions stand disposed of in the

above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any.

                                          Jyotsna Rewal Dua
May 26, 2025                                    Judge
  rohit