Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16115 (HP)

DOT RAM v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/6756/2022 · 2025-05-23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.3556 and 6756 of 2022 Decided on: 23rd May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No.3556 of 2022 Yan Dutt ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No.6756 of 2022 Dot Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.11245/2025 in CWP No.3556/2022 CMP No.11246/2025 in CWPNo.6756/2022 Allowed and disposed of. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - CWP Nos. 3556 & 6756 of 2022 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of almost common relief, which have been extracted hereinafter from CWP No.3556 of 2022: “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant regularization to the petitioner against the post of Forest Worker from the due date, since the petitioner is working in the respondent department from last 15 years i.e. on muster roll basis for 9 years and on bill basis for 6 years and other similarly situated persons who were also on the same footing, their services have been regularized in the year 2020 and even the respondent department has recently prepared the list of 34 similarly situated candidate for regularisation, but the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of regularization without any justification. ii. That the action of the respondent department, whereby they have changed the service condition of the petitioner without his consent in the year 2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside, since the petitioner has worked as daily wage Forest Worker w.e.f. 2006 to 2015, but the respondent department has wrongly shown him from the year 2016 onwards on bill basis. iii) That the respondent department has given fictional breaks to the petitioner time and again with malafide intention just to deprive the petitioner from getting his service benefits in terms of regularisation policy and same may kindly be condoned.” - 3 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respective cases of the petitioners and the relief prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Pyare Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, Ram Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Ors3, Neter Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4, Shiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. 5 and Khub Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.6. LPA No.60 of 2025, filed by respondent-State against Ram Singh3 was dismissed on 27.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to prefer representations to respondent No.2/Competent Authority for redressal of their above grievances and respondent No.2/Competent Authority be directed to consider their representations within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection for the same. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, but without going into the merits of the petitions, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to 2 CWP No.1529 of 2020 decided on 08.08.2023 3 CWP No.789 of 2024, decided on 04.07.2024 4 CWP No.9085 of 2023 decided on 21.11.2024 5 CWP No.774 of 2024, decided alongwith connected matters on 27.02.2025 6 CWP No. 9086 of 2023, decided on 13.03.2025 - 4 - prefer representations to respondent No.2/Competent Authority within two weeks, who shall consider and decide the same, thereafter in light of aforesaid decisions, within six weeks thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 23, 2025 R.Atal