CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Niranjana Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 11 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 SHI CK 0024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 6250 Of 2023
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

8 paragraphs · 330 words

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

1.

Notice. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

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

“i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release due and admissible minimum of revised scale the petitioner being a para-teacher (earlier) in terms of CWPOA No.7661/2019 titled as “Pushp Raj Khimta Vs. State of H.P. Annexure P-1 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010.

ii. To issue direction to the respondent to immediately pay the minimum of the scale of 10300- 34800 plus appropriate grade pay with effect from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2010 and as has been allowed to all others similarly situated para teachers.”

3.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cases of the petitioner and the relief prayed for by him are covered by judgment dated 29.06.2022, rendered by this Court in CWPOA No.7661/2019 (Pushap Raj Khimta vs. State of H.P & ors). Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances pointed out in the instant petition in light of the aforesaid decision within a time bound manner. This is acceptable to the opposite side.

In view of the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner by passing appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today. While deciding the matter, the aforesaid judgment in Pushap Raj Khimta’s case, supra, be kept in view. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed.