Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/11776/2011 on 30 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11776/2011/H
Decided on:December 30, 2011.
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.
1. Jai Lal son of Sh. Diwakar Shama, resident of village Mandhrghat & PO Junni, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP.
2. Narain Singh son of Sh. Hari Dass Thakur, resident of villageJalag, PO Khatnol, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, HP.
...Petitioners.
VERSUS
1. State of HP through Secretary (Education), to the Govt. of HP, Shimla-2.
2. Director Elementary Education, Shimla.
…..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1.
For the petitioners: Mr.Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G.
R.B. Misra,(Oral).
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “(a) That writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to grant the service benefits in respect of increment, seniority, pay fixation, promotion to the post of head teacher and center Head teacher along with 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
…2…
pension with all consequential benefits along with interest.”
2. According to the petitioners, the matter is covered in his favour by the judgments dated 17.6.2008 of this Court in Hira Lal vs. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 319 of 1997 and dated 10th April, 2009 in CWP (T) No. 4249/2008 titled as Dila Ram & others vs. State of H.P. & others. The petitioners may produce copies of the said judgments along with an appropriate representation before the second respondent, in which case the appropriate action without discriminating the petitioners shall be taken within another four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioners before the second respondent.
3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
( R.B. Misra)
Judge.
December 30,2011. (Dev Darshan Sud)
(sl) Judge
…3…