Saroj Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Saroj Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order in light of the judgment in TA No.4478 of 2015 (Parvati Sharma); liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings if still aggrieved; pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority should consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in a time bound manner in light of the judgment in Parvati Sharma and Others v. State of H.P. (TA No.4478 of 2015).

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representation must afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a detailed speaking order taking note of the judgment in TA No.4478 of 2015 (Parvati Sharma), wherein the issue otherwise sought to be decided in these proceedings already stands adjudicated.

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in an appropriate Court of law if she still remains aggrieved.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.11403 of 2025 (Saroj Kumari v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Another), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral), decided 16.07.2025: Before notices could issue, counsel for the petitioner stated that her client would be satisfied if her pending representation (Annexure P-3) were considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner in light of the judgment of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Parvati Sharma and Others v. State of H.P. (TA No.4478 of 2015, decided 21.12.2022). The State's Additional Advocate General was not averse to this prayer. The Court, without going into the merits, disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and passing a detailed speaking order taking note of that judgment, wherein the issue sought to be raised already stands adjudicated. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to seek further judicial remedy if still aggrieved. Pending applications stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.11403 of 2025

Date of Decision: 16.07.2025

_______________________________________________________ Saroj Kumari …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that her client would be content and satisfied in case her pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No.4478 of 2015, titled as Parvati Sharma and Others Vs. State of H.P. and Another , decided on 11.01.2018 and judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3038 of 2022, titled as Nisha Kumari and Others Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. , decided on

21.12.2022, in a time bound manner.

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

2

Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General,

fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgments.

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if she still remains aggrieved.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

July 16, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge