In this writ petition concerning pension benefits, the Supreme Court of reference was referred to. The High Court directed respondents to decide the petitioner's claims within six weeks without examining the merits.
Direction to respondents to consider and decide petitioner's case for redressal within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4393 of 2023 Decided on: 12th September, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Janki Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 (Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others) on 18.07.2022. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.
4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of her grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Balo Devi ,
3
supra , within a period of six weeks from today. The decision
so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
September 12, 2023 Mukesh
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to pension and consequential benefits from 30.06.2007 in light of Apex Court decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othersReferred¶5
Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 (Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others)
Janki Devi
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
