Petitioners sought consideration of their representation in light of a Division Bench judgment. Court, without expressing opinion on merits, directed the Competent Authority to decide the representation within six weeks taking into account the judgment relied upon.
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 AT SHIMLA CWP No. 895 of 2024 Decided on 15th July, 2024
Dr. Asha Devi and others
…Petitioners
Versus Respondents
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )
CMP No.11156 of 2024
Though, it’s an admitted appeal, but, today an
application qua early hearing of the petition has been listed, which is disposed of as not pressed.
CWP No.895 of 2024
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as
the petitioners have already filed representation through their association to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith
2
connected matters, titled as Taj Mohammad and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 03.08.2023, interest of justice would be served in case this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
3. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this petition is disposed of with the direction that let the representation made by the petitioner be decided by the Competent Authority, in terms of the averments made therein, taking into consideration the judgment being relied upon by the petitioners therein, within a period of six weeks from today.
4. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge
July 15, 2024 (Vinod)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents should be directed to decide the petitioners' representation in light of the Division Bench judgment in Taj Mohammad.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Taj Mohammad and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and othersRelied on¶2
CWP No. 2004 of 2017, titled as Taj Mohammad and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
Dr. Asha Devi and others
State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Ajay Mohan Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
