Disposed¶20

Madan Lal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Aug 2025CWP/13656/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Representation to competent authority; time-bound disposal; respondent No.3; Mohit Sharma CWP No.1638 of 2024 judgment dated 29.11.2024; Co-ordinate Bench; similarly situated petitioners; eight weeks; further four weeks; Annexure P-5; petitions disposed of; Himachal Pradesh; CWP 2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-5) within eight weeks by a detailed and reasoned order in terms of CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma); benefits of that judgment to be extended within a further four weeks if the petitioners are found similarly situated. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶20

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.3 (the competent authority) should be directed to decide the petitioners' representations in a time bound manner in terms of the judgment in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma), and whether the petitioners, if found similarly situated, are entitled to the benefits granted under that judgment.

¶14

Court's answer

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-5 in all the petitions) within a period of eight weeks by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma).

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners are found similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP No.1638 of 2024, they shall be given all the benefits granted to the petitioner therein within a further period of four weeks.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Satyen Vaidya, J., oral) disposed of nine connected writ petitions (CWP Nos. 13646, 13648, 13650, 13652, 13654, 13656, 13658, 13660 and 13708 of 2025) on the basis that the issue raised stood settled by a Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 29.11.2024 in CWP No.1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others). Respondent No.3 (competent authority) was directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-5) within eight weeks by a detailed and reasoned order strictly in terms of the Mohit Sharma judgment, and, if the petitioners were found similarly situated, to extend to them all the benefits granted under that judgment within a further period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

¶1

( 2025:HHC:29059 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CWP No.13646 of 2025 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 27^th August, 2025

¶4

CWP No.13646 of 2025
Chatter Singh	.......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others	...Respondents
CWP No.13648 of 2025
Hitesh Kumar and another	.......Petitioners
versus
State of H.P. and others	...Respondents
CWP No.13650 of 2025
Niraj Bala	.......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others	...Respondents
CWP No.13652 of 2025
Digvijay Singh	.......Petitioner
versus
State of H.P. and others	...Respondents
CWP No.13654 of 2025
Yogita Chauhan	.......Petitioner

¶5

( 2025:HHC:29059 )

¶6

¶7

	versus
State of H.P. and others		...Respondents
CWP No.	13656 of 2025
Madan Lal		.......Petitioner
	versus
State of H.P. and others		...Respondents
CWP No.	13658 of 2025
Rahul		.......Petitioner
	versus
State of H.P. and others		...Respondents
CWP No.	13660 of 2025
Arun Kumar		.......Petitioner
	versus
State of H.P. and others		...Respondents
CWP No.	13708 of 2025
Monika Indolia		.......Petitioner
	versus
State of H.P. and others Coram		...Respondents

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶9

( 2025:HHC:29059 )

¶10

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioners: Ms. Anita Devi, Advocate in all the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with Mr.L.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G.

¶12

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶13

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue arising in these petitions has already been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2024 passed in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others . She submits that the petitioners have already made representations to the competent authority and they will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioners in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment in Mohit Sharma (supra).

¶15

The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners Annexure P-5 (in all the

¶16

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶17

( 2025:HHC:29059 )

¶18

¶19

petitions) within a period of eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others . Needless to say, in case the petitioners are found similarly situated to the petitioners in CWP No.1638 of 2024, they shall be given all the benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No.1638 of 2024 within a further period of four weeks.

¶20

The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid

¶21

terms, so also the pending applications, if any.

¶22

August 27, 2025

¶23

(naveen)

¶24

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

Madan Lal v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Ramnesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Beena Devi and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Puran Chand and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sahi Ram Arya Vs Uma Devi Sood

Subhash Chand Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joti Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others