Daljeet Kaur vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(i) That the action of the Respondents in not deciding the representations submitted vide Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7 to Annexure P-9 may be held to be illegal and unsustainable.

(ii) That the Respondents may be directed to reengage the Petitioner w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment with all consequential benefits like continuity in service, seniority etc. in view of the law in CWP 415 of 2000 titled as Baldev v. State LHLJ 2009 HP 293 in CWP No. 1216/2002 dated 18.8.2008 titled as Hem Prabha v. Stateand in CWP(T) 5269/2008 dated 21.4.2010 titled as Rakesh Sharma v. Stateforthwith.

(iii) That the Respondents may be directed to consider and regularize the Petitioner as a TGT (Arts) w.e.f. the date junior-contract incumbents as in Annexure P-14 and Ors. (in Paonta Sahib/other Block in District Sirmour/other Districts) were regularized on completion of 8 years of contract service as per the policy of the Govt. in the year 2008/2009 in regular pay scale with all consequential benefits forthwith.

It is seen that representations Annexures P-7 to P-9 by the Petitioner are pending before the second Respondent. It is also seen that the first Respondent had even directed the second Respondent to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second Respondent to look into the representations and take appropriate action thereon, adverting to the submissions made in the representations, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the Petitioner along with a copy of the writ petition before the second Respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.