Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 26 vs State Of H.P. & Others on 26 September, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 73 of 2016
Date of decision: 26.
26.09.2016
.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Sh. Madan Sharma & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ....Respondents
___________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan,
Chauhan, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
________________________ _________________
For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate.
rt
For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma & Mr. Varun
Chandel, Additional Advocate
Generals with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr.
Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate
Generals.
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
The petitioners, by the medium of this writ petition, have sought the following reliefs:
"(a) Respondents may be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners immediately by formulating the "Employees Service Rules" as has been done by the respondents in the other trusts formed by it under "The Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984."
(b) Respondent No. 1 may be specifically directed to approve the "Employees Service Rules 2014"
1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:18:19 :::HCHP -2-
(annexure-P10) proposed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner Temple Trusts, Distt. Shimla .
immediately to enable the respondent trusts to regularize the services of the employees as per their seniority.
(c) Respondents trusts may also be directed to compensate those employees/petitioners, who have of rendered their valuable services in the service of respondent trusts for more than 20 to 30 years rt legitimately expecting that their services would be regularized by the respective respondent trusts."
2. Respondents have filed reply. It is apt to reproduce para-7 of the reply herein:
"7. That the contents of para 7 of the petition are admitted to the extent that Sri Jakhoo Mandir, Shri Sankat Mochan Mandir, and Shri Tara Devi Mandir were taken over by the Govt. under Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1984. All the Temple trusts have drafted Employees Services Rules which are under consideration with the replying respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners are wrong in comparing the service rules framed by the others renowned temples of the State because income and assets of every temple differ from others. Further Shree Jakhoo Mandi, Shri Sankat Mochan Mandir and Shree Tara Devi Mandir are on the path of creating assets and large portion of the income of these temples is being invested on the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:18:19 :::HCHP -3- developmental works of the temples in order to provide more facility to the devotees."
.
3. In view of the reply, the respondents are directed to pass consideration order within a period of three months from today, after hearing the parties.
4. It goes without saying that in case the of consideration order goes against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same.
5. rt The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly, as indicated above, alongwith pending applications.
Copy dasti.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
September 26
26, 2016 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Chauhan)
(hemlata) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:18:19 :::HCHP