Disposed

Laik Ram Negi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Oct 2023CWP/2703/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of CWP No. 2703 of 2023 by directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case expeditiously in light of the principles laid down in Amita Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, allowing a hearing and reserving liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Amita Gupta case and to afford opportunity of hearing.

Laik Ram Negi Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.2703 of 2023 Date of Decision: 11.10.2023

Laik Ram Negi

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Sunaina and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General.

¶12

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority in terms of judgment dated 1.12.2022, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7359 of 2021, Amita Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors . Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

¶14

2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds

¶15

¶16

that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶17

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Amita Gupta’s case (supra) , expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶18

October 11, 2023

¶19

manjit

Laik Ram Negi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laik Ram Negi v. State of Hp and Others

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

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Other

Manjusha Narwal Vs State of Hp and Others

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Kailash Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Meena Kanwar and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

Pratap Singh Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others