High CourtsSingle Bench

Chetan Kumar And Ors vs State Of H.P. And Anr

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 18 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 SHI CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyen Vaidya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 392 words

Satyen Vaidya, J

1.

Notice. Mr. Leela Nand Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

2.

The instant petitions have been filed for the following relief(s):-

“That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to count the contract services rendered by the petitioners for all purposes including the purposes of annual increments, leave encashment, career progression scheme and for the purposes of counting the services towards pension and the contract service rendered by the petitioners may very kindly be ordered to be counted for the purposes of seniority and they may kindly be released all the consequential benefits after counting of their contract service from the date of their initial appointment by grant the arrears along with interest @ 9% p.a. in the interest of justice and fair play.”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the case of the petitioner(s) is squarely covered by a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5290 of 2023, titled as Arun Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & another, decided on 3.11.2023. He further submits that in a case of similar nature, a Division Bench of this Court has also decided the identical issue in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad & others Vs. State of H.P. & others. As per learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) have already made representations to respondent No.2, but the representations of the petitioner(s) have not been decided till date. He further submits that the petitioner(s) will be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner(s) in a time bound manner.

4.

The prayer being innocuous is not opposed.

5.

Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representations of the petitioner(s) within eight weeks from today, strictly in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad & others Vs. State of H.P. & others and also by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5290 of 2023, titled as Arun Kumar vs. State of H.P. & another, decided on 3.11.2023 by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.