CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Seema Gupta & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 March 2024 · Citation: (2024) 03 SHI CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satyen Vaidya, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 10462 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

11 paragraphs · 550 words

Satyen Vaidya, J

1.

Notice. Mr. Sidharath Jalta, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2.

By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

“(a) That the order dated 25.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 14.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 28.02.2009, 21.11.2008, 7.11.2008 and 7.11.2008 at Annexure P-1, may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that the petitioners have been given appointment on regular basis as TGT (Medical), TGT (Non Medical) and TGT (Arts) instead of contract basis with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, seniority, promotion etc. and the arrears accrued thereunder may very kindly be ordered to be paid with interest of 9% per annum, in the interest of justice.

(b) That the common office order dated 22.06.2015 Annexure P-2, may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that the services of the petitioners as TGT (Medical), TGT ( Non Medical) and TGT (Arts) may be regularized from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 25.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 14.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 28.02.2009, 21.11.2008, 7.11.2008 and 7.11.2009 with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion etc., in the interest of justice.

(c) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioners to the post of TGT (Medical), TGT ( Non Medical) and TGT (Arts) on regular basis instead of contract basis w.e.f. 25.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 7.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 14.11.2008, 25.11.2008, 28.2.2009, 21.11.2008, 7.11.2008 and 7.11.2008 with all consequential benefits including seniority promotion etc., in the interest of justice.

3.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the subject matter of instant petition is squarely covered by a judgment passed by a Devision Bench of this Court on 04.10.2019 in LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ravinder Kumar, along with connected matters. He further submits that the judgment passed in LPA No.21 of 2013 has already been implemented by the State Government.

4.

He submits that the petitioners in the instant petition shall be satisfied, at this stage, in case time bound directions are issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 21 of 2013.

4.

Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.

5.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners within eight weeks from today strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 04.10.2019 in LPA No. 21 of 2013, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Ravinder Kumar, along with connected matters, by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Needless to say that in case the petitioners are found entitled to the benefits of aforesaid judgment, they shall be granted all similar benefits as have been granted to the beneficiaries of judgment passed in LPA No.21 of 2013 within six weeks thereafter. It is clarified that monetary benefits, if any, available to the petitioners shall be restricted to a period of three years only immediately preceding the date of filing of instant petition.

6.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.