The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking implementation of a notification dated 7.7.2000, directing the respondents to implement it with consequential benefits within two months.
Direct the respondents to implement notification dated 7.7.2000 with consequential benefits within two months.
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. 7540/2008 Decided on:2.12.2010
Jugendra Singh. …Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and another. …Respondents.
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G.
Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) .
Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that notification dated 7.7.2000, Annexure A-1, till date has not been implemented. This fact is not disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? no
2
period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma), Judge
2.12.2010 awasthi
Jugendra Singh
State of H.P.
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
