Bal Krishan Katoch vs State Of H.P. And Another

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Notice. Mr. Varun Chandel, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as TGT (Non-Med.) w.e.f. 01-01-2007 with all consequential benefits i.e. upon completion of 8 years of contractual service, like other TGTs who were appointed in the year 1998.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 10.04.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No.1853 of 2009 (Arpana Bali Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others). Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Arpana Bali, supra, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.