Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1699/2018 on 28 December 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 1699 of 2018 Date of decision: December 28, 2018. Rashmi Thakur. ….Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & ors. …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rohit, Advocate, vice Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. AG with Mr. J.S.Guleria and Mr. Kunal Thakur, Dy. AGs for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 already exparte. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.
(Oral)
Reply has not been filed despite opportunity granted.
2. Heard.
3. The following relief has been sought to be granted in this writ petition:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.
I) That in view of the submissions made in the writ petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to count the break period of the petitioner w.e.f. 27.9.2008 to 18.8.2009 as continuous service for the purpose of seniority in view of the judgment dated 4.5.2017, passed in CWP No. 2309 of 2016, in the interest of justice and fair play.
4. The complaint is that the petitioner has been discriminated against similarly situated persons in the matter of assigning seniority to her by not counting the period w.e.f. 27.9.2008 to 18.8.2009 when she remained out of job on account of an illegal order of her termination from service passed by the Complaint Committee headed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned.
5. We find from the record that the facts and also points in issue in this writ petition are squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this court in Saroj Devi’s case decided vide judgment Annexure P-7. Nothing to the contrary that the ratio of this judgment is not applicable in this case has been brought to our notice.
6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred to hereinabove within two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment along with that of the writ petition and the judgment
Annexure P-7 by the petitioner before the said respondent. The due and admissible benefits be also granted to the petitioner within the same time. In case the decision taken by the second respondent goes against the petitioner, she will be at liberty to seek the remedy available to her in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge. (Chander Bhusan Barowalia), December 28, 2018, Judge.
(vs)