Disposed

Deepak Kumar v. Prabodh Saxena

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Jul 2017COPC/108/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners were directed to be sent for Constable training. The State accepted earlier directions and withdrew its latest order, agreeing to comply. The current petition was disposed of based on the State's assurance.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; the State is directed to implement earlier orders by sending the petitioner for training in the next available batch.

Deepak Kumar Vs Prabodh Saxena — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

COPC No. 108 of 2017 Date of Decision: 12.07.2017

¶3

Deepak Kumar …..Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sh. Prabodh Saxena and Ors. ...Respondents. Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge .

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. J.K. Verma & Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals. Mr. Prabodh Saxena, Principal Secretary (Home), Mr. Sumesh Goel, DGP and Mr. D.W. Negi, S.P. Shimla, (respondentscontemnors).

¶9

Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (oral)

¶10

We are happy, in fact delighted, that the State has now accepted, and in our considered view, rightly, the opinion that of the learned Advocate General, State of Himachal Pradesh and as a consequence thereof, withdrawn the order dated 13.6.2017, further undertaking to implement the directions contained in the judgment dated 12.1.2017 so rendered in CWP No. 2832 of 2016 titled “Deepak Kumar v. State of H.P. and Ors.”

¶11

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

…2…

¶13

(Annexure C-1) as also order passed in this petition on 14^th June,

¶14

2017, which we reproduce as under:-

¶15

“Judgment dated 12.1.2017 passed in CWP No. 2832 of 2016:-

¶16

“7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances fo the case and with the consent of the parties, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider respondent No. 4 for appointment as Constable and depute him for training. The respondents-Authorities are also directed to consider the writ petitioner for appointment as Constable and depute him also for training, if any post is available. We hope and trust that the Advocate General shall get the needful done and also that the respondents-State will pass follow up orders accordingly.”

¶17

Order dated 14.6.2017:-

¶18

“Respondents No. 2 and 3 are present in person. For the reasons orally explained, presence of respondent No. 1 is exempted for the day. Learned Advocate General assures that the matter shall be examined at the highest level and all consequential actions taken in accordance with law. Unless so directed, we exempt the personal presence of the respondents in future.

¶19

Response-affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter. List on 12^th July, 2017.”

¶20

Needles to add, we need not say anything further, in

¶21

closing these proceedings, hoping that such direction shall be implemented forthwith and positively within a period of four weeks from today. Further, orders passed in the present petition as also the action taken by the respondents are in the given and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, not to be treated as a binding precedent in future. We are in agreement with the

¶22

…3…

¶23

submission made on behalf of the State that since training has already begun, the petitioner(s) shall be sent for training in the next available batch, which has to commence sometime in October, 2017.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, present petition is disposed of, so also, pending applications, if any. Notices are discharged.

¶25

( Sanjay Karol), Acting Chief Justice

¶26

12^th July, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ), Manjit Judge.

Deepak Kumar v. Prabodh Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar v. Prabodh Saxena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Som Dutt Sharma Vs Hp Power Corporation

Gulab Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Vasu Sharma Vs Union of India

Raman Kumar Vs Anuradha Thakur and Others

Krishan Lal Vs State of Hp

Court on its own Motion Vs State of Hp