Allowed¶21

State of Hp and Others v. Gita Ram Tegta

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Dec 2024RP/86/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition allowed; recall of writ order; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dr. Gita Ram; RP No. 86/2024; CWP No. 6639 of 2023 restored; order dated 20.10.2023 recalled; basis order dated 31.5.2023 in CWP No. 2108 of 2023 (Bhagat Ram) recalled on 30.8.2024 in Review Petition No. 98 of 2024; arrears of pay/pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016; revised gratuity; leave encashment; commutation of revised pension; benefits to abide by fresh decision; roster Bench; Sandeep Sharma, J.; decided 06.12.2024; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed and disposed of alongwith all pending applications; order dated 20.10.2023 in CWP No. 6639 of 2023 recalled; CWP No. 6639 of 2023 restored to its original number and position for listing before the roster Bench; benefits already released to abide by the fresh decision.

State of Hp and Others Vs Gita Ram Tegta — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 6639 of 2023 should be recalled in review, given that the Division Bench order dated 31.5.2023 in CWP No. 2108 of 2023 — its basis — has itself been recalled.

¶18

Court's answer

Since the order dated 31.5.2023 in CWP No. 2108 of 2023, which was the basis for the order dated 20.10.2023, has itself been recalled (vide order dated 30.8.2024 in Review Petition No. 98 of 2024), the Court allowed the review petition and recalled the order dated 20.10.2023 without going into the correctness of the grounds raised by the review petitioners.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

CWP No. 6639 of 2023 is restored to its original number and position and is to be listed before the Bench having roster.

¶21

Key takeaways

Benefits, if any, released in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner pursuant to the recalled order dated 20.10.2023 shall abide by the decision in CWP No. 6639.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), 06.12.2024 — Review Petition No. 86 of 2024, State of Himachal Pradesh & others v. Dr. Gita Ram: The State sought review of the order dated 20.10.2023 in CWP No. 6639 of 2023, by which the Court — relying on the Division Bench order dated 31.5.2023 in CWP No. 2108 of 2023 (Bhagat Ram) — had granted the writ petitioner arrears of pay/pension from 1.1.2016, revised gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of revised pension. Before the review grounds could be examined, it was informed that the very basis order dated 31.5.2023 had itself been recalled vide order dated 30.8.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 98 of 2024, restoring CWP No. 2108 of 2023. Holding that the foundation of the order under review had fallen, the Court allowed the review without adjudicating the grounds raised, recalled the order dated 20.10.2023, restored CWP No. 6639 of 2023 to its original number and position for listing before the roster Bench, and directed that any benefits already released shall abide by the fresh decision in CWP No. 6639.

¶1

2024:HHC:13494

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Review Petition No.86 of 2024

¶4

Date of Decision: 06.12.2024

¶5

____________ ___________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh & others …….Petitioners Versus Dr. Gita Ram … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioners :	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
	Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
	B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals
	and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
	General.

¶8

For the Respondent : Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate.

¶9

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶10

Pursuant to the notice issued in terms of order dated 18.09.2024, Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶11

Present review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 20.10.2023 passed in CWP No. 6639 of 2023. The writ petitioner in aforesaid petition had sought a direction to the respondents/review petitioners to release arrears of pay/pension with effect from 1.1.2016 and to pay revised gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of revised pension. During arguments, learned counsel

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

2024:HHC:13494

¶15

for the writ petition placed reliance upon order dated 31.5.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2108 of 2023, whereby Division Bench directed respondents to release similar benefits to the petitioner therein. This court, relying upon the aforesaid order, passed similar order in writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner herein.

¶16

Now, the review petitioners/State have come before this Court in review, on the ground that the facts of case of Bhagat Ram supra and those of writ petitioner herein are totally different and as such, directions contained in Bhagat Ram could not have been applied to the case of writ petitioner herein.

¶17

However, before going into the nitty-gritty of the arguments advanced by review petitioners, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General informed this Court that the order, which was the basis for passing order sought to be reviewed, itself has been recalled vide order dated 30.8.2024 passed in Review Petition No. 98 of 2024 and CWP No. 2108 of 2023 has been restored to its original number and position.

¶18

Though, the review petitioners have raised different grounds in the review petition, for recalling order dated 20.10.2023, but since the order dated 31.5.2023, which was the basis for passing order dated 20.10.2023, has itself been recalled, without going into

¶19

¶20

2024:HHC:13494

¶21

the correctness of grounds raised by review petitioner, present review petition is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Court in CWP No. 6639 of 2023 is recalled. CWP No. 6639 of 2023 is restored to its original number and position. The same be now listed before the Bench having roster. Benefits, if any, released in favour of respondent/writ petitioner, pursuant to order dated 20.10.2023, shall abide by the decision in CWP No. 6639.

¶22

Review petition stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶24

December 06,2024 (shankar)

State of Hp and Others v. Gita Ram Tegta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Gita Ram Tegta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Dev Vs State of Hp and Others

M/S R.D. Enterprises Vs State of Hp and Others

Devi Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur and Another

M/S Neeraj Singh and Co. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chemists and Druggists Association Vs State of Hp and Others

Pawan Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others