Sunita Devi v. State of Hp
Case brief
What is this about?
Counsel informed the Court that Rule 8(3)(b) G.B.P.B. 1992 covers the petitioners based on earlier judgment in Madan Lal case. Court directed Respondents to provide similar benefits as given in Madan Lal case within six weeks via reasoned order. Petition disposed.
What did the court decide?
Directive to respondents to grant similar benefits as in Madan Lal case within six weeks via reasoned order and dispose of pending applications.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
1
( 2024:HHC:4545 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.3980 of 2019 Decided on : 05.07.2024
Sunita Devi & Others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
…....Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
CMP-T No.402 of 2024
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sunita Devi & Others
- respondent
State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram
Virender Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CWPOA/3980/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court