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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-5) in light of Narender Kumar's case (CWP No. 244 of 2019), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situate, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 7.5.2019 in State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Narender Kumar (CWP No. 244 of 2019), and extend similar benefits to the petitioner if he is similarly situate.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Narender Kumar's case, and no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Narender Kumar's case (supra).

Key takeaways

The decision on the representation is to be made expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶13
In case the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶13
While doing the needful, the concerned authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.13379 of 2025 (Parkash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), decided on 21.08.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. (oral), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla: Writ petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-5) in light of the Division Bench judgment dated 7.5.2019 in CWP No. 244 of 2019, State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Narender Kumar, which has been further upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The Court found that the issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated in that judgment and that no prejudice would be caused by such direction. If the petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in the said judgment, similar benefits are to be extended; the concerned authority is to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13379 of 2025

Date of Decision: 21.08.2025

____________________________________ Sh. Parkash Chand	___________________ …….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ____________________________________	… Respondents ___________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal and Ms. Shagun Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client

would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.5.2019, passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in CWP No. 244 of 2019, titled as “State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Narender Kumar , which has been further upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondents is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

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

2

2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied

upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in light of Narender Kumar ’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

August 21, 2025 (manjit )