Arun Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 221

RANJAN SHARMA
Arun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

3. The petitioners, initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and Lecturer (School Cadre) and some are presently working as Lecturer, School Cadre, have filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the contract period of the petitioners w.e.f. the year 2008/09/10 as regular for all purposes like salary, seniority, increment and pensionary benefits from the initial date of appointment and grant them the consequential benefits in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in LPA 54 of 2013 and CWP No. 414 of 2014 and other connected cases, in the interest of justice and fair play.”

4. In the background, of the reliefs prayed for above, the brief facts and that respondents commenced the selection process for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers [Arts/Medical/Non M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document