Disposed
Subhash Sood v. State
Himachal Pradesh HCCWPOA/2594/2008
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T)…
What the court decided
AI extract
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T)…
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.
CWP(T) No.: 2594 of 2008.
Decided on: 15.12.2010.
__________________________________________________________ Subhash Chand Sud. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate vice Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General.
Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) :
In sequel to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 3rd October, 2010, reply has been filed. Para-1 of the reply reads thus:-
“That it is submitted that the untrained period of in service teachers who had undergone B. Ed. Training as mentioned in para 1 A to G in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, has already been regularized and treated as study leave and financial benefit has also been given to such persons by the respondent-Stte. It is further submitted that the above mentioned benefit has not been given to the petitioner so far. However, his case was taken up with the Government for approval, which is awaited.”
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
December 15, 2010. (sck).
Subhash Chand Sud
State of Himachal Pradesh
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court