Petitioners claimed parity of benefits with those granted in an earlier writ case decided by a Coordinate Bench. Counsel sought consideration in light of that judgment; the Court disposed of the petition directing respondents to consider their cases within eight weeks and pass speaking orders.
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. 2390 of 2024 Date of decision : 9.4.2024. Mahesh & others ...Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge .
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Addl. A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3929 of 2020, titled as, Dr. Shweta Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. & others on 24.11.2023. He further submits that petitioners shall be content in case the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners in a time bound manner in light of judgment ibid .
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
case of the petitioners in light of judgments passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3929 of 2020, titled as, Dr. Shweta Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. & others on 24.11.2023, within eight weeks from today and will decide the same by passing a speaking order. In case, the petitioners are found similarly situated as petitioners in the above mentioned judgments, they will also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioners in above referred cases. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of.
9th April, 2024 (kck)
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners, claiming to be similarly situated to petitioners in CWP No. 3929 of 2020, should receive the same benefits after consideration by respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Shweta Sharma & others vs. State of H.P. & othersRelied on
CWP No. 3929 of 2020
Mahesh & others
State of H.P. & others
Satyen Vaidya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
