Himachal Pradesh High Court
Harish Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 8 October, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
CWP No.1922 of 2018
Date of decision : 08.10.2018
Harish Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia , Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate .
For the Respondents : Ms. Rita Goswami, Mr.Vikas Rathore,
Addl. A.Gs., Mr. J. S. Guerlia and Ms.
Svaneel Jaswal, Dy. A.G s. for the
State.
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following relief:-
"(i) Issuing a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to count the petitioner's service w.e.f. 25.8.2007 towards seniority for all intent and purpose.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:57:46 :::HCHP...2...
(ii) Issuing a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to release the .
grant in aid to the petitioner for w.e.f.
19.1.2009 to 14.10.2009 alongwith interest.
(iii) Issuing a writ of mandamus for
directing the respondents to
regularize/take on contract basis the services of the petitioner as PTA teacher at par and alongwith those whose services had been taken over after completion of 7 years along with all consequential benefits by counting the period of 19.1.2009 to 14.10.2009 towards his service as per Govt. of H.P. policy decision dated 6.8.2013."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation, venting out his grievance, which he shall be making within a period of two weeks from today. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the reliefs as orally prayed for, is ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:57:46 :::HCHP ...3...
that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation .
which he shall be making within a period of two weeks from today.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents has no objection to the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention not only to several decisions rendered by this Court but the modified order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby the decisions rendered by this Court, stand assailed. It is pointed out that the stand taken by the State is self contradictory and contrary to the settled principle of law.
5. Be that as it may, in view of the assurance given by the State that the petitioner's representation shall be cons idered dispassionately based on the material placed by the parties before the authority, we are in agreement with the learned counsel that the issue be first decided by the State itself.
6. No other point is urged.
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:57:46 :::HCHP...4...
7. Leaving all questions of law open, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel more .
so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the
8.
r to receipt thereof, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assig n reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority shall consider and decide all issues, more so, in the light of the orders, which stand modified by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:57:46 :::HCHP ...5...
Hon'ble Apex Court and not only the stand taken by the State in response to the writ petition.
.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia),
October 8, 2018 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:57:46 :::HCHP