Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another vs Shri Het Ram Sharma And Another on 9 October, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
.
LPA No.154 of 2013
Date of decision : 09.10.2018
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
... Appellants
Versus
Shri Het Ram Sharma and another
...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 Appellants : Ms. Rita Goswami, Mr.Vikas Rathore,
Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. J.S. Guerlia,
Dy. A.G.
For the Respondents : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present appeal assailing judgment dated 26.12.2012 passed by this Court, in CWP No.4931 of 2012, titled as Het Ram Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:59:44 :::HCHP...2...
Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
.
2. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"8. In view of the observations made hereinabove, though the petitioners are declared not to be illegible for the post of Research Officer as per existing R&P Rules, but taking into consideration a number of years they have worked against same post, respondents are required to frame a scheme for providing at least one or two promotional avenues to the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed partly and the respondents are directed to frame a scheme within a period of four weeks from today for providing at least one or two promotional avenues to the petitioners and after framing of scheme, the case of the petitioners shall be considered immediately in accordance with law since they have approached this Court before their retirement.
The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No c osts."::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:59:44 :::HCHP
...3...
3. It is only that the Court has expressed its concern with regard to non availability of promotional .
avenue and it is in this backdrop that the directions contained in Para-9 of the judgment, are required to be considered. Welfare State is duty bound to ensure career progression, in terms of the settled principle of law, of each one of its employees.
appeal rstands application(s), if any.
With the aforesaid observations, present disposed of, so also pending (Sanjay Karol), Judge.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia), October 9, 2018 (KS) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2018 22:59:44 :::HCHP