Disposed

Lal Singh Thakur v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Nov 2014CWP/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a writ petition concerning employee eligibility. It directed the respondent authority to examine the petitioners' cases and decide within six weeks, reserving liberty to approach the court if the decision was adverse.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation before Respondent No. 2 within six weeks; liberty to challenge decision if adverse.

Lal Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 29 of 2014-C Decided on: 24.11.2014

¶3

Sh. Lal Singh Thakur & others

¶4

…Petitioners.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh & others

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?

¶11

For the petitioners: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶12

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶13

Mr. Rajpal Thakur, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, stated that the case of petitioners No. 1 and 3 stands examined and they came to be promoted, petitioners No. 2 and 5 are not eligible and petitioner No. 4 has attained the age of superannuation and stands retired. His statement is taken on record.

¶14

Mr. S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated at the Bar that the respondents have not considered the case of all the petitioners at par with one Shri Sita Ram, who, according to him, is respondent No. 4, but, no such Sita Ram has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the array of respondents.

¶15

Be that as it is, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the petitioners be permitted to file

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

representation before respondent No. 2 with liberty to challenge the decision, if it goes against them. His statement is taken on record.

¶18

Accordingly, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file representation before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 to examine the case of the petitioners and make a decision within six weeks.

¶19

It goes without saying that in case the decision goes against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith all pending applications.

¶21

Copy dasti.

¶22

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice

¶23

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶24

November 24, 2014

¶25

( rajni )

Lal Singh Thakur v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Singh Thakur v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Health Biotech Ltd. Vs Union of India

Satish Kumar Vs State of Hp

Krishan Chand Vs State of Hp

Hrtc Vs Khushal Singh

Naresh Chand Vs State of Hp

Rohit Kumar Vs State of Hp