Dismissed

Tarsem Raj and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC11 Sept 2023CWP/4316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the present writ petition without examining merits. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases in light of a prior judgment (CWPOA No. 7661 of 2019) and pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioners' cases in light of CWPOA No. 7661 of 2019 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Tarsem Raj and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4316 of 2023

¶2

Decided on: 11^th September, 2023

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Tarsem Raj & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents

¶4

________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua,

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

____________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta & Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocates General.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Notice. Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy

¶10

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

2. Heard.

¶12

3. The petitioners have filed the present petition for the grant of following relief:-

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

¶15

“(A) That a writ in the nature of mandamus and any other writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to extend the benefit of minimum of the pay scale to the petitioner, which was revised on 01.01.2006 (Rs.10300-34800) with appropriate Grade Pay of the post for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till actual payment with all consequential benefits. ”

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶17

the relief prayed for by the petitioners is covered by the decision dated 29.06.2022, rendered in CWPOA No. 7661 of

¶18

2019 ( Pushap Raj Khimta & others Vs. State of H.P. &

¶19

Ors.). Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be content if the cases of the petitioners are considered by the respondents in light of the aforesaid judgment. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶20

5. Having regard to above submissions and without examining the merits of the matter, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

¶21

¶22

order. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated

¶23

to the petitioners.

¶24

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶25

to stand disposed of.

¶26

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶27

September 11, 2023 R.Atal

Tarsem Raj and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Raj and Others 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

Basant Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Amin Chand and Others Vs Hrtc and Another

Som Dutt Vs Hpsebl and Others

Kahan Chand Vs State of Hp and Another

Rajinder Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Others

Dimpal Raj Vs the State of Hp and Others