Disposed¶21

Durga Nand v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024CWP/12596/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; CWP 12596/2024; Durga Nand v. State of H.P.; pension; counting of ad hoc/adhoc service period; JBT teacher; Article 226; writ without prior representation; mandamus; consequential benefits and arrears; representation to competent authority to be decided within four weeks; reference to CWP No. 10529 of 2011 Youdhishther Kumar; disposed of; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

What did the court decide?

No substantive mandamus issued; petition disposed of with a direction that upon the petitioner preferring a representation within two weeks, the competent authority shall decide it in accordance with law within four weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner. ¶21

Durga Nand Vs State of Hp and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 12596/2024 Decided on: 04.12.2024

¶3

Durga Nand …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner: Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶10

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate

¶11

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

2 . This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following

¶13

substantive relief:-

¶14

“ That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued by directing the respondents to count adhoc period of petitioner as JBT i.e. 21.05.87 to 18.12.95 for the purpose of pension, alongwith all consequential benefits including arrear of same, in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 10529 of 2011 titled as Youdhishther Kumar Vs. State of HP & Another.”

¶15

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary

¶16

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievance raised in the writ petition.

¶20

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

¶21

5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

04^th December, 2024(rohit)

Durga Nand v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Nand v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ishan Arora Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Kanchan Rana Vs Ashish Singhmar and Another

Sushil Kumar Vs Hrtc and Another

Milla Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Sita Ram Vs Kadam Sandeep and Another

Neelam Kumari Vs Union of India and Others