Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-2 Colly.) in light of the judgment in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; if petitioners are found similarly situated, similar benefits to be extended; authority to afford opportunity of hearing and pass speaking order; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-2) in light of the judgment in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur) in a time bound manner. +1 more

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Inder Singh Thakur (CWP No. 4830 of 2023); accordingly, there is no impediment in issuing a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in light of that judgment in a time bound manner.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-2 Colly.) of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid judgment, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are found to be similarly situated to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶16
The authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.11227 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided on 14.7.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. — Petitioners (Sanjay Kumar and Ors.), through proxy counsel, submitted that the issue raised was already adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025, and sought directions to the respondents to consider and decide their representations (Annexure P-2) in light of that judgment in a time bound manner. Without calling for a reply, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of the said judgment; if the petitioners were found similarly situated to the petitioners therein, they would be extended similar benefits; the authority concerned was to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. All pending applications stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11227 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.7.2025

Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

……...Petitioners

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

…....Respondents

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

For the Petitioners: Ms. Sakshi Thkaur, Proxy Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 , titled as “Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025 and as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide their representations in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call

2 -

for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representations (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioners, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

3. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Inder Singh Thakur (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-2 Colly.) of the petitioners in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an

3 -

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.

July 14, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge