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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer as such not allowed; petition disposed of by consent with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal's case; interim order, if any, stands vacated; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who seeks benefit of the decision rendered in CWP No. 2274 of 2024 (Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided 28.05.2024), can be granted that benefit when the judgment has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Court's answer

Since the mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi's case along with connected matters has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed.

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of parties, the petition is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal's case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi's case; the interim order, if any, stands vacated and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral order dated 27.08.2025) disposed of CWP No.13759 of 2024 (Krishna Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another), in which the petitioner sought benefit of the judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2024, Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided 28.05.2024. The Additional Advocate General pointed out that the Satya Devi judgment had been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 20496 of 2024, and an Apex Court order dated 24.03.2025 in connected SLPs (lead case SLP (C) Diary No. 11306 of 2025, State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Inder Pal) staying the operation of the impugned order(s) was placed before the Court. Holding that the mandate of the Satya Devi judgment stood stayed, the Court found the prayer could not be allowed; with the consent of parties it disposed of the petition with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi's case shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal case, vacated the interim order, if any, and disposed of pending applications, if any.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.13759 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Krishna Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition, petitioner seeks benefit of the decision rendered in judgment passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2024, titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. decided on 28.05.2024.

2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case has been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20496 of 2024, relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition cannot be allowed. Copy of an order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.03.2025 in several connected Special Leave Petitions, with lead case being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 11306 of 2025 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Inder Pal, has been made

2

available to this Court during proceedings of the case and same reads

as under:-

“(1) Delay condoned.

(2) Let the notice be issued to the respondents(s) in all the matters.

(3) Tag alongwith SPL(C) No. 20496 of 2024

(4) In the meantime the operation of the impugned order(s), is/are stayed.”

3. Since it is quite apparent from the aforesaid order that mandate contained in the judgment passed in Satya Devi’s case along with connected matters has been stayed, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be allowed, but with the consent of parties, petition at hand is disposed of with a direction that benefits, if any, flowing to the petitioner under Satya Devi’s case, shall abide by the outcome of the Inder Pal’s case instituted by the respondents against the common judgment rendered in Satya Devi’s case. Ordered accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

August 27, 2025 Manjit