Disposed

Kamla Devi v. Bhakra Beas Management Board

Himachal Pradesh HC22 Jun 2017CWP/620/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mere disposal of a writ petition applying a previous case's directions mutatis mutandi, directing authorities to consider the petitioner's claim within two months and assign reasons if rejected.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach authorities; authorities to decide within two months whether petitioner is similarly situated; liberty to approach Court reserved if order unfavorable.

Kamla Devi Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board — Himachal Pradesh HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.620 of 2017 Date of decision: 22.6.2017

¶3

Kamla Devi ..Petitioner

¶4

Versus Bhakara Beas Management Board & others . Respondents

¶5

Coram:

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr.Naresh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.N.K. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Aman Sood, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral)

¶8

As orally prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is similarly situated with that of petitioner Hema Devi, whose case came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 30^th March, 2017, passed in CWP No.2379 of 2016, titled as Hema Devi vs. Chief Engineer Beas, Satluj Link, and others, which reads as under:-

¶9

“Mr.Aman Sood, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, stated that Circular No.504, dated 17th January, 2013, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence has been adopted by the Government of Punjab, vide notification No.5/1/13-2RBH/780838, dated 23^rd June, 2016, and that the said notification of the Punjab Government has been adopted by the respondentBoard, vide letter No.30322-83/R&R/4084/R-4, issued on 26th September, 2016. It was further submitted

¶10

¶11

that the petitioner may approach respondent No.1 for the release of benefits, which have already been sanctioned in his favour, in terms of the above notification. His statement is taken on record.

¶12

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the respondents/Authority concerned for the release of benefits, to which he is entitled to. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.”

¶13

We dispose of the present petition making the directions issued in CWP No.2379 of 2016 (supra) mutatis mutandi applicable to the present case.

¶14

Needless to add, it is for the authorities to consider and decide as to whether the petitioner is similarly situated with that of petitioner in CWP No.2379 of 2016 (supra) within a period of two months from today. However, it is made clear, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.

¶15

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Copy dasti .

¶16

( Sanjay Karol ) Acting Chief Justice

¶17

June 22, 2017 ( Sandeep Sharma ) (vt) Judge

Kamla Devi v. Bhakra Beas Management Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Devi v. Bhakra Beas Management Board

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

Ram Pratap Vs State of Hp and Others

Balak Ram Dhiman Vs State of Hp

Naina Devi Vs State

Pratap Chand Vs State of Hp

Khub Chand Vs State of Hp

Jaihinder Kumar Vs State of Hp