Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
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
6. CWP No.8720/2025 Shareshta Devi
…..Petitioner
2 Versus State of H.P. and Anr. .....Respondents
7. CWP No.8722/2025 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/ 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 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. &
4 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). 2 CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019, decided on 22.08.2022
5 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