Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33371 (HP)

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/19492/2025 · 2025-12-16

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19492 of 2025 Decided on: 16th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vijay Kumar Gupta and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. As per the pleadings, petitioners were appointed as Volunteer Teachers during the year 1992 and regularized as Junior Basic Trained Teachers in the year 1998. They seek applicability of Oma Wati and another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 for counting the services rendered by them on contract basis for the purpose 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWPOA No.5507 of 2020, decided on 21.08.2023 2 of pension and increments. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have preferred a representation to the respondents on 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) in this regard. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Oma Wati2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh