IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4977 of 2024
st
Decided on: 31 May, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avinash Kumar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N.
Sharma, Additional Advocates
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is heard at this stage.
3. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis
on 04.05.2021. His services were regularized on
04.10.2023. The contention of the petitioner is that his
initial appointment on contract basis was pursuant to
1
Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
proper recruitment process followed by the respondents in
terms of the applicable Recruitment and Promotions Rules.
Therefore, he is entitled to count the entire period of
contractual service for the purpose of seniority, pay
fixation, promotion, annual increments and pension etc.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition
has already been adjudicated upon in CWP No.2004 of
2017 (Taj Mohammad and others Versus The State of
Himachal Pradesh and others), decided alongwith
connected matter on 03.08.2023. Grievance of the
petitioner is that his representation seeking aforementioned
relief has not been decided by the competent
authority/respondent. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is
issued to the respondent/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 for the
respondents states that the respondents are not averse to
consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid
3
judgment, however, all rights and contentions of the parties
be left open for decision.
4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but
without examining the merits of the matter, this writ
petition is disposed of by directing the respondent 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 Taj Mohammad, supra, within a period of six
weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be
communicated to the petitioners.
It is clarified that all rights and contentions of
the parties are left open.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
May 31, 2024 Judge
rohit