A revision petition under C. Rev.(T) No. 8 of 2010 was dismissed as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record of the High Court Administrative Tribunal's judgment.
The present revision petition and any pending applications were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
C. Rev.(T) No.: 8 of 2010.
Decided on: 10.11.2010.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Petitioners. Versus
Onkar Nath Dhawan and another. … Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : None.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) :
Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has taken
the Court to the judgment dated 23rd June, 2006 rendered by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Onkar Nath Dhawan versus State of H.P. and others, O.A. (D) No.316 of 2005. However, he has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
November 10, 2010. (sck).
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Onkar Nath Dhawan versus State of H.P. and othersReferred¶11
Onkar Nath Dhawan versus State of H.P. and others, O.A. (D) No.316 of 2005
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Onkar Nath Dhawan and another
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
