Disposed

Urmila Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Dec 2024CWP/14824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition seeking salary and financial benefits for the petitioner up to age 60. The Court dismissed the petition by accepting counsel's undertaking that a representation would be filed and decided within the statutory time limits, thus avoiding the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed upon undertaking to file representation; no substantive relief granted.

Urmila Devi Vs the State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.14824 of 2024 Decided on: 9^th December, 2024

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Urmila Devi …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

¶14

“(a) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow full salary/service and financial benefits till the Petitioner reached 60 years of age without any restriction of arrears of salary and other benefits at par with the benefits allowed in the Judgment Annexure P-1. The date of retirement of the Petitioner may be considered as 31.05.2023 for all

¶15

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶16

¶17

service benefits and actual salary of the post from 31.05.2021 to 31.05.2023 may be allowed to the Petitioner in terms of the Judgment Annexure P-1.”

¶18

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra

¶19

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 her grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶20

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶23

December 09, 2024 Mukesh

Urmila Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Devi v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Chhotu Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Karam Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Dasoda Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Another

Nagesh Thakur Vs State Election Commission of Himachal Pradesh

Kamla Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others