Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16078 (HP)

CHHANGU RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/10075/2025 · 2025-06-24

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10075 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Chhangu Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following relief:- “That the respondents may be ordered to regularize services of the petitioner on completion of 10 years’ part time services, as has been done in the other similarly situated cases with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. According to the petitioner, the issue in question is no longer res integra and the same is covered by the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2804 of 2012, titled as Sanjay Kumar & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 24.04.2012, which judgment, in turn, has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 11506 of 2011, titled as Laxmi Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 10.07.2012. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 3. This is a matter which is required to be considered and decided by the respondents. 4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments. In case, the case of the petitioner is found to be covered by the aforesaid judgments, then the similar benefits, as were granted to the petitioner(s) in the aforesaid judgments, be also granted to the petitioner herein, within a period of six weeks. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 24, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)