BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Himachal Pradesh judgment dated 2020-10-15. BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER v. 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. 3474 of 2020 Decided on: 15. 10. 2020 Balwant Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Adarsh K. Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General. (Through Video Conferencing) L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral) The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as JBT Teachers on contract basis. Thereafter, the respondents have regularized their services. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
The petitioners claim that on regularization, they are entitled to the benefit of revised pay scale, but, the same has not been extended to the petitioners. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the similarly situated persons have approached this Court by way of CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008, titled H. P. Rajkiya Prathmik Anubandh Adhyapak Sangh versus State of H. P. and another (Annexure P1), seeking the same relief, which was th allowed on 30 November, 2010, and, since the petitioners claim themselves to be the similarly situated persons to the petitioner in the writ petition (supra), the same relief is prayed for by the petitioners in the instant writ petition also. 3. It is further submitted that though the petitioners have requested the respondents to extend the said benefit to them, but the respondents have failed to do so. 4.
In the light of the above submissions, we are of the view that the judgment passed in the writ petition (supra) (Annexure P1), relied upon by the petitioners, should be made available to the respondents alongwith the representation for seeking the benefit of revised pay scale. If such a representation is made by the petitioners, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 5. To enable the respondents to consider their case, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation alongwith the copy of the order passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 6037 of 2008 (supra). On receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (L. Narayana Swamy) Chief Justice (Anoop Chitkara) Judge October 15, 2020 ( rajni )
Source: High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.