Disposed

Balinder Singh v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2017CWP/1408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a brief report on a writ petition filed for the release of grant in aid. The court noted non-submission of response and relied on a prior decision with identical facts, directing the respondent to decide the petition as a representation within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the writ petition as a representation within three weeks.

Balinder Singh Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

	CWP No. 1408 of 2016
	Date of decision: May 04, 2017.
Sh. Balinder Singh.	…...Petitioner.
	Versus
State of H.P. & ors.	……Respondents.

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pramod Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

¶6

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following

¶8

prayer:

¶9

“i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the grant in aid w.e.f. 2^nd December 2008 to 7.9.2009 along with interest and with all consequential benefits.”

¶10

On the previous date following order came to be passed in this writ petition:

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

¶12

¶13

“Despite opportunities afforded, response not filed. Be positively filed within a period of four weeks, failing which it shall be presumed that response is not required to be filed and petition shall be heard on the basis of material available on record. Rejoinder, if any, be also filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶14

List on 24.04.2017 before the Deputy/Additional Registrar (Judicial), before whom, learned counsel for the parties undertake to appear/cause appearance for compliance of the order. Thereafter, matter be listed before the Court on 04.05.2017.”

¶15

Irrespective of the order ibid the respondents have failed to file response to the writ petition. It can reasonably be believed that they have nothing to say in the matter. Otherwise also, the facts of this case are identical to that in CWP No. 2281 of 2014, titled Tapender Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others , which stands disposed of vide judgment dated 27.5.2016. The point in issue, as such, is squarely covered by the judgment supra in favour of the petitioner in this case.

¶16

Therefore, there shall be a direction to respondent No. 2 to treat this writ petition as representation and decide the same within three weeks from today in the light of the given facts and circumstances and also the judgment of this Court in Tapender Singh’s case supra. The opportunity of being heard be also provided to the petitioner before a conscious decision in the

¶17

¶18

matter is taken by the said respondent. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again if still feel aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision to be taken in the matter by second respondent.

¶19

The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶20

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.

¶21

May 04, 2017, (vs)

Balinder Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balinder Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhdeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Khyalu Ram Vs Mangla Nand

Ram Kali Vs Soma Devi

Ajay Kumar Vs The Director National Institute of Open Schooling

Sanjay Kumar Vs Vineet Kumar

Pushpender Thakur Vs State of Hp