MANOHAR LAL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2024-12-31. MANOHAR LAL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16582/2024 Decided on:31. 12. 2024 Manohar Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H. P. & Ors. . …Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Dalip K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to strictly implement policy decision and 11. 05. 2018 (Annexure P-2) to regularize the services of petitioner w. e. f. 01. 04. 2018 along with all consequential benefits for all intent and purposes as being held by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 342 of 2021 in Yashwant versus State of H. P. & others dated 31. 08.
2022, further upheld by Apex Court on 24. 04. 20223 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 6966 of 2024, vide Judgment dated 04. 04. 2023 (Annexure P-5). ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioners accordingly and to calculate & pay Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? arrears of salary consequent upon regularization of services from due date along-with seniority etc. in service. ” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today.
In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge st 31 December, 2024(rohit)
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.