High CourtsDivision Bench(2021) 03 SHI CK 0047

Chhape Ram And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, CJ · Anoop Chitkara, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 1317 Of 2019, Latter Patent Appeals No. 55 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 312 words

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

1.

These two appeals have been filed against the common order passed by learned Single Judge on 01.05.2017 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2259 of 2013

titled as Amar Chand and others vs. State of H.P and others, in which the official respondents were directed to confer the whole time status upon the

appellants, respondents herein, strictly in the light of the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 3310 of 2011 within a period of six weeks.

2.

The apprehension of the appellants is that they were regularized, and after regularization, they sought for some substantial time, and at this juncture,

in view of the said judgment, there is threat of reviewing their seniority, hence they have preferred these appeals.

3.

While arguing, we have asked as to whether the appellants have taken such contentions in the writ petition and it is found from record that no reply

has been filed though the appellants have submitted that they have adopted the submissions of the respondent-State. Even to that effect, there is no

reference in the order and also no memo to that effect has been filed.

4.

Be that as it may, it is presumed that while complying with the order passed on 1st May, 2017 in case, if it is not complied with till today, these

appellants are going to be affected or any affected party shall be given an opportunity of being heard and thereafter appropriate orders be passed. It is

seen from the impugned judgment that six weeks time was granted on 01.05.2017 and probably the respondents must have complied with it, but in

case if it is not complied, an opportunity should be given before complying with the same by issuing necessary memo or notice.

5.

With these observations, both these appeals are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.