Disposed¶18

Subhash Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC27 Aug 2025CWP/13806/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.13806 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 27.08.2025 by Satyen Vaidya, J.; Subhash Chand v. State of H.P.; representation Annexure P-9; parity with CWP No. 1638 of 2024 (Mohit Sharma); eight-week time-bound decision; benefits on similar situation; miscellaneous applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's case within eight weeks in light of the judgment in CWP No. 1638 of 2024; petitioner to receive the same benefits if found similarly situated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶18

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13806 of 2025 Decided on: 27.08.2025

¶2

Subhash Chand ...Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & others ...Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Abhimanyu Rathore, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

¶10

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional

¶11

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as, Mohit Sharma & another vs. State of H.P. & others , decided on 29.11.2024, Annexure-7. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority and copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall

¶13

be satisfied at this stage in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-9 of the

¶14

¶15

petitioner in a time bound manner in light of the judgment Annexure P-7 (supra).

¶16

The prayer being innocuous is not opposed.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions

¶18

to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, in light of judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, titled as, Mohit Sharma & another vs. State of H.P. & others , decided on 29.11.2024, Annexure-7. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is found similarly situated, as the petitioner in CWP No. 1638 of 2024, he shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioners in CWP No. 1638 of 2024. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶19

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

¶20

27^th August, 2025 (vt)

Subhash Chand v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand 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

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joti Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others