COVERED MATTERS BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HP - SERVICE MATTERS

COVERED MATTERS BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HP

IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS OF SERVICE MATTER

  UPDATED ON 19.08.2020

 

29.12.2014	CWP No. 6169 of 2014 Umesh Kumar Vs state of HP	Financial crises cannot be a defense for not releasing the amount, which is due and payable to an employee.   JUDGMENT
13.10.2015	LPA No. 44/2015 MC Shimla Vs Mathu Ram	1.     Corporation is State. 2.     Regularisation on completion of 8 years.   JUDGMENT
08.02.2019 SC	Civil Appeal No. 1557-1564/2019 HRTC Vs Lekh Ram	Compassionate appointment on the basis of policy in vogue at relevant point of time.   JUDGMENT
04.10.2019	LPA No. 21/2013 State of HP Vs Ravinder Kumar	Taking over of affiliated Schools – services of employees to be taken over on regular basis.   JUDGMENT
07.01.2020	CWP No. 537 of 2018 Kedar Singh Negi Vs HP High Court	CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 - Count the services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis prior to his regularisation towards qualifying service for the grant of pension and thereafter allot GPF Account Number to the petitioner, who shall now be governed under the old pension scheme i.e. the scheme prevalent prior to the Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006.   JUDGMENT
26.12.2019	CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 Sheela Devi Vs State of HP	CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Services rendered by the husband of the petitioner on contract basis prior to his regularisation shall be treated as qualifying service for grant of pension.   JUDGMENT
01.01.2020	CWP No. 3267/2019 Ram Krishan Sharma Vs AG	CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 -  Counting of adhoc service for pension.   JUDGMENT
15.07.2020	CWPOA No. 849/2019 Dr. Kamal Dev Sharma Vs State of HP	CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 -  Counting of adhoc service for pension.   JUDGMENT
01.09.2008	CWP No. 415/2000 Baldev Singh Vs state of HP	i) that the State should normally not make any appointment without following the R & P rules;   ii) that in a situation where the Sate or its instrumentalities are forced to make public employment without following the R & P rules, we recommend that the approval of the Administrative Secretary not below the rank of Principal Secretary should normally be obtained after given complete reasons, in respect of each post, as to why the post could not be filled up by following the R & P rules;   iii) that the appointees on contract basis are to be treated at par with the ad hoc appointees;   iv) that this court has no power to direct the State to regularize the services of any employee appointed without following the R & P rules;   v) that this court cannot direct the State to frame a policy of regularization; and   vi) that the State must follow the principle of ‘last come first go’ as enumerated above vis-à-vis the employees who are appointed de hors the rules.   vii) that normally the State should not regularize the employees appointed without following the rules since this adversely affects the rights of many eligible candidates.   JUDGMENT
10.04.2013	CWP No. 1853/2009 Arpana Bali Vs state of HP	Regularisation of Lecturer from date on completion of 8 years of service.   JUDGMENT
09.07.2020	CWP No. 1628/2020 Aditi Bramta Vs state of HP	victim of sexual harassment  at whose instance an Internal Complaints Committee, under the provisions of   the Sexual Harassment   of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act”) JUDGMENT
19.12.2019	CWP No. 4279/2019 Mukesh Rana Vs state of HP	During 01.12.2017 to 05.02.2019 “Gramin Mukt Vidhyalayi Shikshan Sansthan”, the respondent No.5 was duly recognized with Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education.   10th Class certificate of the petitioner issued by Grameen Mukt Vidhyalayi Shiksha Sansthan, as a valid certificate for applying to government jobs or getting admission for higher education.   JUDGMENT
23.06.2011	CWP (T) No.  14491/2008 Kamal Kishore Vs State of HP	Regularisation of absence period against leave without pay.  No disciplinary action initiated.  Not proper to regularize leave without pay.  Leave be regularized against leave in credit.   JUDGMENT
26.04.2012	CWP No. 2080/2012 Sunit Pathania Vs state of HP	Regularisation of absence period against leave without pay.  No disciplinary action initiated.  Not proper to regularize leave without pay.  Leave be regularized against leave in credit.   Judgment
28.07.2010	CWP No. 2735/2010 Rakesh Kumar Vs State of HP	7. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case(s) of the petitioners herein for conferment of work-charged status, subject to their eligibility in terms of the policy dated 3.4.2000 and as explained in 6.5.2000 policy, as extracted above. Needful in this regard shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the respective petitioners. Needless to say that the question of conferment of work-charged status does not arise in case the establishment ceases to be a work charged establishment and hence, the conferment of the status will not arise after the abolition of the workcharged status of the establishment.   JUDGMENT
30.06.2020	CWPOA No. 698/2019 Kiran Chand Sharma Vs State of HP	CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 -     14. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law relied upon, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner on contract basis while computing qualifying service for the purpose of pension and increment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.   JUDGMENT
11.09.2012	CWP No. 2642/2009 Dharam Pal Saroch Vs State of HP	The petitioners in CWP No. 2431 of 2012 have infact asked for the benefit of counting of their adhoc service for the purpose of increments, promotion and other service benefits. As far as promotion is concerned, we have already held that it would depend on their position in the seniority list. But the tenure service followed by regular service will count for all other purposes as qualifying service. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.   JUDGMENT
17.07.2014	CWP No. 3050/2014 Nek Ram Vs State of HP	CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The respondents are directed to release all the pensionery/retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of three months. Pension shall be released to the petitioner regularly on first day of each month. All the retiral and pensionery benefits shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the due date. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of   JUDGMENT
18.03.2020	CWPOA No. 138/2019 Lokinder Dutt Sharma  Vs Board of Directors Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation	CCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 – 14. Thus, what can be gathered from the aforesaid discussion is that the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner after the retirement of the petitioner is totally illegal and without any authority of law. Even the order of recovery passed on such enquiry, is also illegal.   JUDGMENT
25.11.2019	CWP No. 3035/2019 Sunita Devi Vs HP Subordinate Service Selection Board	Ward of ex-serviceman certificate not rejected by the commission being not exactly on prescribed format.  Letter of spirit of certificate produced by candidates is same. JUDGMENT
21.12.2019	CWP No. 4024/2019 Ranjana Devi Vs State of HP	Whether the married daughters/wards of Freedom Fighters are entitled to reservation in recruitment? Held Yes.   JUDGMENT
14.08.2018	CWPIL No. 114 of 2017 Court on its own motion Vs State of HP	Gender discrimination, in the State Policy, providing reservation in Government jobs to the wards of Freedom Fighters. Held, 35. The questions are, thus, answered as under, by holding that {(1) & (2)} the Policy of the State is discriminatory, and (3) in confining benefits of reservation to married sons unlike married daughters, there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved in providing reservation for wards of Freedom Fighters.   JUDGMENT
15.06.2015	CWP No. 8953/2013 Joga Singh Vs state of HP	CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 - Counting of Service rendered as Vidya Upasak for pension.   JUDGMENT
07.07.2005	HPSEB Vs Dayal Singh CWP No. 198 of 1998	Eligibility conditions including educational qualification of employee due for regularisation is to be seen as prevailing not on date when he is to be considered for regularisation but on date or at the time of his initial appointment on daily wage basis.   JUDGMENT
05.07.2010	Surinder Kumar Vs State of HP CWP (T) No. 14121/2008	Compassionate Appointment - There cannot be any estoppel against any fundamental/legal right. Petitioner had no alternative except to accept the Class-IV post after the demise of his father. He subsequently made representation for considering his case to Class-III post when he came to know that Ashwani Kumar, whose father also died in harness, has been offered Class-III post.   JUDGMENT
30.10.2018	LPA 387/2012 state of HP Vs Kamlesh Kumar	Taking over of schools - 23. We find that the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge is plausible and would not warrant any interference, for the selection as the appointment of appellant does not strictly meet with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There are nevertheless some mitigating circumstances, namely,   (i) that the appellant worked in the College for eight years or so and by now she might have become overage for Government service;   (ii) she has been legitimately expecting for the outcome of these proceedings; and   (iii) she relies upon certain instances where the Council of Ministers granted special relaxation and absorbed similarly placed persons. While no positive Mandamus can be issued to grant relaxation and for absorption of the appellant, it appears to us that owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed above, her case requires sympathetic consideration by the State Government.   JUDGMENT