Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Kumar & Ors. vs . State & Ors. on 18 August, 2025
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 .
Ravinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State & Ors.
CWP No. 13214/2025 18.08.2025 Present: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5, respectively.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No.19736/2025 Heard.
Petitioners seek interim relief against order dated 11.08.2025 passed by respondent No.3 rejecting their representations, wherein they had prayed inter-alia for their continuation at the district level offices of respondent No.3.
2(i) It was on 20.06.2015, when the respondents-State had set up Himachal Pradesh Kaushal Vikas Nigam-respondent No.3. The notification dated 20.06.2015 also created posts for the said Nigam including 12 posts of Assistant/Clerk/Junior Assistant/Data Entry Operator-one for each district.
2(ii) Petitioners four in number were deployed against the post of Data Entry Operators in respondent No.3-Nigam on ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 2 .
outsource basis by respondent No.5-NIELIT on 20.03.2017, 01.06.2017, 21.08.2017 and 02.07.2022, respectively. They were deployed in Districts Solan, Mandi & Kullu, Kangra & Lahaul and Spiti. District Skill Committees were notified by the respondents on 03.12.2020 for implementation of Skill Development Programmes across the State.
On 25.07.2022, petitioners along with others requested for enhancement in their salaries/emoluments.
2(iii) Respondent No.3 passed an office order on 24.07.2025 directing all 10 JOA-IT's deployed at the district level offices of respondent No.3-Nigam to report at respondent No.3-Headquarter at Sunder Nagar for additional staff support.
The office order also directed that the furniture, equipment and office record lying in district offices of respondent No.3-Nigam be shifted to nearby Government ITIs'.
2(iv) Petitioners moved CWP No. 12377/2025 (Ravinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.) inter-alia seeking relief against their alleged arbitrary transfers without any promotion and salary revision. The substantive reliefs therein prayed for by the petitioners read as under: -
"a. that the petitioners have been discharging regular and core duties of the department for 8 years, denial of parity in pay is unconstitutional.::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 3
.
b. that arbitrary transfer without financial viability and with no promotion or salary revision amounts to forced exploitation.
c. that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution d. that similarly situated employees in other departments like Welfare Societies are being paid Rs.25,000/- for the same work.
e. that the action is unjust, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice.
r f. declare that the act of arbitrary relocation without salary enhancement violates Articles 14, 16 and 21. g. pass any other or further orders as deemed just and proper in the interest of justice."
The writ petition was disposed of on 30.07.2025 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners within time bound schedule after giving them an opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration the fact that petitioners were receiving salary of Rs.11,000/- and in the event of transfer from Shimla to Sunder Nagar, they may find it difficult to sustain themselves.
2(v) Pursuant to above, respondent No.3 considered petitioners' representations and vide a detailed order passed on 11.08.2025 rejected the same.
3. The impugned order gives following reasons for rejecting petitioners' representations for their retention in the district offices: - (i) Petitioners were deputed on outsource basis through outsource agency at district level offices of ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 4 .
respondent No.3-Nigam during years 2017-2022. The Headquarter of respondent No.3-Nigam stands shifted from Shimla to Sunder Nagar. Consequently, all employees of respondent No.3 have been directed to report for duty at Sunder Nagar. (ii) The district offices of respondent No.3, save & except the one in District Hamirpur, all have been closed, accordingly, the supporting staff in the district offices have been directed to report/join their duties at the newly shifted headquarter of respondent No.3-Nigam at Sunder Nagar. (iii) Due to deployment of all district Coordinators at Headquarter, work was not available in the district level offices, therefore, supporting staff viz. Data Entry Operators and JOA (IT) were directed to report to perform their duties at Headquarter-
Sunder Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that at present all district offices of respondent No.3- Nigam have been closed save and except District Hamirpur and all district Coordinators have been directed to join their duties at new head office of respondent No.3-Nigam at Sunder Nagar.
The above being the admitted position, interim relief prayed for by the petitioners for their continuation in the district offices, which do not exist anymore & stand closed as ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 5 .
on date, cannot be granted to them, therefore, the application is dismissed.
It is clarified that the above order decides only the interim prayer of the petitioners and shall not impact the consideration of their main case on merits.
r to Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 6 . Suresh Kumar Vs. State & Ors. CWP No.12050/2025
18.08.2025 Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
At the request of learned Deputy Advocate General, list on 19.08.2025.
Interim order to continue.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 7 .
CWP No.12028/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. Khulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, respondent No.5 present in person.
CWP No. 12028/2025 & CMP No. 17693/2025 Respondent No.5 is present in person and submits that reply to be filed by respondents No.1 to 4 shall be adopted by him. He does not intend to file any separate reply.
Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5 prays for and is allowed three weeks' further time to file reply. List thereafter.
Interim to continue.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 8 .
Vandana Kumari Vs. State & Ors.
CWP No.11646/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice counsel, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents. A detailed order was passed in this case on 21.07.2025: -
"Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Respondents issued appointment order to the petitioner alongwith certain other individuals to the post of Junior Basic Teacher on contract basis on 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-1). Name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No.2 in the aforesaid office order, whereas, names of one Ms. Santosh Kumari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma were reflected at Sr. Nos.9 and 11, respectively, being junior to the petitioner. Appointment order gave ten days' joining time to the candidates. Ms. Santosh Kumari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma statedly joined the very next day, i.e. 01.04.2023, whereas, the petitioner availed ten days joining time and joined her service on 03.04.2023, i.e. within the ten days joining time given to her under office order dated 31.03.2023.
3. On 09.04.2025 (Annexure P-3), the respondents issued an office order, regularizing the services of contractual employees. Name of the petitioner did not figure in this list, but the names of aforesaid Ms. Santosh Kumari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma were reflected with their dates of appointment as 31.03.2023 and dates of joining on contract basis as 01.04.2023.
Petitioner represented to the respondents against non-regularization of her services. The respondents have rejected her representation vide order dated 02.07.2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 9 .
(Annexure P-5) with the reasoning that the State Personnel Department had issued a letter on 06.04.2022, communicating the decision of the State Government to condone the period of holidays only in such cases where the offer/order of appointment is issued on the last working day of month of March or September, as the case may be and the holiday(s) fall(s) immediately thereafter restricting the incumbent to give joining in that particular month of appointment. The date of issuance of offer/order of appointment will be reckoned as cut-off date for their regularization and such period & joining time shall be considered as condoned inter-se. Further, according to the respondents, petitioner's case did not fall under the concession given in office letter dated 06.04.2022. That the appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioner and others on 31.03.2023. She could have joined the very next day, i.e. on 01.04.2023, which was a working day, whereas, she did not join her duties. The petitioner having not completed her two years contractual service as on 31.03.2025, was not entitled for regularization alongwith Ms. Santosh Kumari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma, in whose case, regularization order was issued on 09.04.2025.
4. Prima facie, the aforesaid reasoning of the respondents appears to be not in consonance with law and is also against the facts. Office order dated 31.03.2023, appointing the petitioner and others on contract basis, clearly provides ten days' time for joining to the incumbents. Thus, the petitioner could have joined the service by 10.04.2023. She joined on 03.04.2023, i.e. within the provided joining time. Petitioner could not have been discriminated vis-à-vis Ms. Santosh Kumari and Ms. Jyoti Sharma for regularization of her contractual services.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention to an office order dated 20.09.2024 (Annexure P-
6) and submits that while regularizing the services of the incumbents under this office order, the date of joining on first appointment on contract basis has not been taken into ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 10 .
consideration, but the date of offering appointment has been kept in view in case joining was within the stipulated period.
5. Let the respondents file reply/instructions with respect to the above grievance of the petitioner within a week. It shall also be open for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization afresh within the aforesaid period.
List on 30.07.2025."
2. On the next date of hearing, instructions dated 29.07.2025 were placed on record, which appeared to have been supplied without even going through the order passed in this case on 21.07.2025, accordingly, in terms of order dated 30.07.2025, respondents were directed to file the reply positively within two weeks. The reply has still not been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case is covered under Sapna Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. (CWP No. 2602/2023) decided on 22.07.2025.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General prays for and is allowed two weeks' time, by way of final opportunity, to file reply to the writ petition.
List on 05.09.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 11 .
CWP No. 11304/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. Anshuman Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is stated to have been filed on 14.08.2025, however, the same is not on record. Be placed on record, if in order.
Rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, if intended be filed, be filed within three weeks. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 12 .
::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 13.
CWP No.10634/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Reply on behalf of respondent No.5 is stated to have been filed, however, the same is not on record. Be placed on record, if in order. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 to also follow up the matter with the Registry in this regard.
Fresh instructions have not forth-come from the respondents-State. Let reply be now filed positively within two weeks.
List on 10.09.2025.
In the meanwhile, rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No.5, as prayed for, be also filed.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 14 .
CWP No. 7036/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. R.K.Kaundal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. T.C. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Though the recovery has been statedly initiated on the objections made by respondent No.4, the said respondent has not filed its reply till date. Respondent No.4 is directed to do so within two weeks, which shall be the final opportunity. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 15 .
CWP No. 4258/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. R.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. T.C. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for respondent No.5 prays for and is allowed further three weeks' time to file reply. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 16 .
::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 17.
Dharmender & Ors. Vs. Ashish Kohli COPC No. 750/2025 18.08.2025 Present: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
Compliance affidavit has not been filed.
Final opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file compliance affidavit List on 08.09.2025.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 18 .
Highway Administrator & Project Director Vs. Sonam & Ors.
Arb. Appeal No. 105/202518.08.2025 Present: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Sumesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohan Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents Mp/2 & 3.
Office reports non-deposit of the awarded amount, consequence shall follow.
Learned vice counsel for respondent No.1, who has already been proceeded against ex-parte on 29.07.2025, submits that an application is being moved for letting the said respondent to join the proceedings.
As prayed for, list after three weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 19 .
Arun Kumar Vs. Dr. Amarjeet K. Sharma & Anr.
COPC(T) No. 10/202518.08.2025 Present: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents.
Compliance affidavit has not been filed.
Final opportunity of two weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file compliance affidavit. List thereafter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 20 .
CWP No. 11108/202418.08.2025 Present: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta & Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate vice counsel, for respondents No.3 & 4.
Reply on behalf of respondents No.3 & 4 is stated to have been filed, however, the same is not on record. Learned counsel for the said respondents to follow up the matter with the Registry to ensure that the objections, if any, are removed in the reply, so that the same reaches the Court file. List after three weeks.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th August, 2025 (rohit) ::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS 21 .
Sarup Chand Vs. CSKHPKV CWP No. 10312/2024 18.08.2025 Present: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent.
List on 03.09.2025.
r to
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
18th August, 2025 (rohit)
::: Downloaded on - 18/08/2025 21:26:06 :::CIS