Disposed

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Oct 2023CWP/2884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' case expeditiously within four weeks, in light of the Apex Court judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi and the coordinate Bench judgment in Hem Raj Sharma, while affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider and decide petitioners' case within four weeks in light of prior judgments; liberty to appeal later.

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 2884 of 2021.

¶3

Date of decision: 20th October, 2023.

¶4

Dinesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ... .Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Gautam Sood and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General. For Respondent No.4: Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate.

¶6

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that his clients 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 7.8.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 10399 of 2020 , titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Sheela Devi and judgment dated 16.9.2023,

¶8

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

¶9

…2…

¶10

passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 844 of 2019 , titled as Hem Raj Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters. Learned counsel for the respondents are not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioners.

¶11

Having perused aforesaid judgments sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgments 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 petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶12

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioners in light of Sheela

¶13

Devi and Hem Raj (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the respondent/petitioners in the aforesaid judgments, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms

¶14

…3…

¶15

of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶16

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶17

20^th October, 2023. (jai)

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Chet Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Joginder Chand Vs State of Hp and Others

Abhishek Kumar Vs Hp Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. and Another

Godavari Devi Vs State of Hp

Parvez Iqbal Vs State of Hp

Meena Kumari and Others Vs State of Hp and Others