Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Himachal Pradesh/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Nasib Singh vs. the State of Hp and Another

Decided on 30 November 2024• Citation: CWP/10260/2024• High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                            2024:HHC:12841          
                     IN THE HIGH COURT  OF HIMACHAL   PRADESH,  SHIMLA              
                                          CWP  No.10260 of 2024                     
                                          Decided on: 30th November, 2024           
                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Nasib Singh                             …..Petitioner           
                                           Versus                                   
                    State of H.P. and another            .....Respondents           
                    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Coram                                                           
                    Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua                                   
                    Whether approved for reporting?1                                
                    For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukesh Thakur, Advocate.                
                    For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General          
                                       with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional          
                                       Advocate General, for respondent No.1.       
                                       Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for           
                                       respondent No.2.                             
                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge                                        
                             Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional         
                    Advocate General and  Mr. Prashant Sharma,  learned             
                    counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of        
                    respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.                           
                    2.       With  the consent of learned counsel for the           
                    parties, the matter is heard at this stage.                     
                    3.       The writ petition has been filed for the grant of      
                    following substantive reliefs:-                                 
                           “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be 
                             issued to the respondents, directing them to grant     
                             seniority to the petitioner, by counting the entire service
                    1                                                               
                     Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

                                             2                                      
                                                            2024:HHC:12841          
                             rendered by the petitioner on contract basis, from the 
                             date of his initial contractual appointment, with all  
                             consequential benefits, and to consider the case of the
                             petitioner for next promotion when due, prior to the   
                             incumbents who have earlier been wrongly promoted      
                             before the petitioner by revising the seniority        
                             accordingly, in terms of the judgment passed by this   
                             Hon'ble in CWP No. 2004/2017 titled as Taj             
                             Mohammad v/s State of H.P.                             
                           (ii) That further mandamus may kindly be issued to the   
                             respondents by directing the respondents to count, the 
                             entire contract service of the petitioner, for the purpose
                             of annual increments, re-fixation of pay, arrears on that
                             account, pension and all other consequential service   
                             benefits, in terms of the judgment passed by this      
                             Hon'ble in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as Taj Mohammad     
                             v/s State of H.P.                                      
                           (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
                             release the entire consequential benefits along with   
                             interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his           
                             appointment till the date of realization.”             
                    4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted           
                    that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by   
                    him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by          
                    this Court in Sh. Taj Mohammad and others Versus The            
                    State  of Himachal  Pradesh  and  others2. Learned              
                    counsel  for the  petitioner also submits that the              
                    representation dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-3) preferred        
                    by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending     
                    consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel             
                    further submits that the petitioner would be content in case    
                    respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide       
                    the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule.      
                         2                                                          
                          CWP No.2004 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 03.08.2023

                                             3                                      
                                                            2024:HHC:12841          
                    Learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel         
                    appearing for respondent No.2 submit that the respondents       
                    are not averse to consider the case of the petitioner in light  
                    of the  aforesaid judgment, however, all rights and             
                    contentions of the parties be left open for decision.           
                    5.       Having regard to the afore-submissions, but            
                    without examining the merits of the matter, this writ           
                    petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent          
                    No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the             
                    aforesaid representation dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-3)        
                    of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking      
                    into consideration the above judgment in the case of Taj        
                    Mohammad2   within a period of six weeks from today. The        
                    decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the        
                    petitioner.                                                     
                             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              
                    November 30, 2024                     Judge                     
                        Mukesh