Disposed

Biasan Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Oct 2017CWP/2146/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes of two connected writ petitions by directing the authority to consider the petitioners' representations regarding inaction and accord equal treatment to similarly situated persons within two months, with liberty to add material and subsequent hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider representations and decide within two months with reserved liberty to add material and subsequent hearing.

Biasan Devi Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP Nos.2146 and 2147 of 2017 Date of decision: 04.10.2017

¶3

CWP No.2146 of 2017 Biasan Devi ..Petitioner Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶5

CWP No.2147 of 2017 Sanjeev Kumar ..Petitioner Versus

¶6

State of H.P. & others . Respondents

¶7

Coram:

¶8

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

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr.Ashok K. Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr.M.A. Khan, Mr.Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr.J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the State of Himachal Pradesh.

¶11

¶12

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out

¶14

that the authority below has not considered the petitioners’ representations/demand notice (Annexure P-1) highlighting the inaction on the part of the authority in not giving similar treatment to the petitioners as stands accorded in favour of similarly situated persons,

¶15

¶16

particulars whereof are representations/demand notice.

¶17

mentioned in the

¶18

No other point is urged.

¶19

As such, as orally prayed for, leaving all questions of law open, we dispose of the present petition on the following terms:

¶20

a) Authority below shall consider this aspect of the matter and take a decision within a period of two months.

¶21

b) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to place additional material, if any, in their support.

¶22

c) Liberty of hearing to all concerned prior to the passing of the order.

¶23

d) Liberty to the petitioners to agitate the issue on the same and subsequent cause of action.

¶24

e) Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioners, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶25

With these directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also pending applications(s), if any.

¶26

October 4, 2017 (vt)

¶27

( Sandeep Sharma ) Judge

Biasan Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biasan Devi v. State of Hp

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

Amita Rani Vs State of Hp

Rajni Sharma Vs A.J.V Parsad

Hp 108 Contract Workers Union Vs State of Hp

Court on its own Motion Vs State of Hp

Court on its own Motion Vs State of Hp

Om Prakash Vs Hrtc