Disposed

Nek Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC26 Feb 2024CWP/296/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order disposes of a writ petition claiming employment under a 2009 Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme. The court directed respondents to consider specific annexures within three months, though it explicitly reserved merit questions due to the petitioner not pressing the main case. No other cases or statutes were applied.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide Annexures P-7, P-8, and P-13 within three months, providing opportunity for hearing.

Nek Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.296 of 2024

¶3

Decided on: 26^th February, 2024

¶4

__________________________________________________________ Nek Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ……Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶7

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the petitioner:	Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Notice. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional

¶11

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

¶12

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order intended to be passed herein.

¶13

3. The petitioner, has filed the instant petition

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶17

“(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent No.5 to give the employment to the petitioner under point No.7 of Rehabilitation and Resettlement scheme, 2009 and particularly on the recommendation of the respondent No.3, within time bound period.

¶18

(ii) That the respondent No.1 to 4 may also be directed to ensure the implementation of the provisions of R&R scheme 2009, in the case of petitioner by the respondent No.5 in a time bound manner.”

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions submits that the petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-13, within a period of three months from today. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the relief as orally prayed for, is that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-13, within a period of three months from today.

¶20

¶21

5. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the same.

¶22

6. No other point is urged.

¶23

7. Leaving all questions of law open, in view of

¶24

the statement made by the learned counsel, more so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide Annexures P-7, P-8 and P-13 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It shall be open for the petitioner to place additional material before the competent authority, if any, within one week.

¶25

8. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of

¶26

the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.

¶27

9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any

¶28

¶29

opinion on the merit of the case.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations, present

¶31

petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications,

¶32

if any.

¶33

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶34

February 26, 2024 (himani)

Nek Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nek Ram v. 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

Ddp Welfare Society Vs Hpptcl and Others

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucki Vs State of Hp

Munish Parwari Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Saneh Lala Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Rajinder Pal Vs Hrtc and Another

Deepa Kapoor Vs State of Hp and Ors.