Disposed¶17

Udham Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Dec 2024CWP/12592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; decision dated 02.12.2024; ACP benefit claim by CHT petitioners Udham Lal and Dharam Prakash against State of H.P.; writ entertained without prior representation; disposal with direction to decide representation under Article 226 within six weeks; CWP 12592 of 2024; CWP 12593 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with liberty/direction that petitioners may file representations within two weeks and the competent authority shall consider and decide them in accordance with law within six weeks, communicating the order to the petitioners. ¶17

Udham Lal Vs State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.12592 & 12593 of 2024 Date of decision: 02.12.2024

¶3

1. CWP No.12592 of 2024
Udham Lal.	...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.	...Respondents.
2. CWP No.12593 of 2024
Dharam Prakash.	...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.	...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel & Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate

¶9

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

¶10

The writ petitions have been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s) extracted from one of the writ petitions:-

¶11

“a. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent to extend the benefit

¶12

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

¶13

-2-

¶14

of ACP to the petitioner on completion of 4 years service as CHT in the cadre from 2009, along with all consequential benefits such as arrear etc.”

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions.

¶16

Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case, such representation so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶18

2^nd December, 2024

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶20

(Pardeep)

Udham Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udham Lal v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Khatri and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Chander Kanta Vs State of Hp and Another

Pardeep Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

NHAI Vs Mangat Ram

Kehar Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakur

Narender Pal Vs State of Hp and Others