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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of the judgment in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; if found similarly situate, petitioner to be extended similar benefits; authority concerned to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; all pending applications disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether directions should be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-2) in light of the judgment in CWP No. 4830 of 2023 (Inder Singh Thakur) in a time bound manner.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Inder Singh Thakur (supra).

Ratio / Principle

There is no impediment in issuing a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, similar benefits would be extended to her.ratio¶¶17
The representation is to be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.15149 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla), Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral), decided 19.09.2025. At the stage before receipt of reply, counsel for the petitioner stated that the issue raised stood already adjudicated by the Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025, and sought directions to decide his representation (Annexure P-2) in light thereof. The Court, perusing the affidavit-supported averments, found the issue already adjudicated in Inder Singh Thakur (supra) and saw no impediment in issuing the direction. Petition disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of that judgment expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; if the petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioners therein, similar benefits to be extended, subject to affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. All pending applications disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.15149 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025

Rakesh Kumar

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.

…....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in CWP No. 4830 of 2023, titled as “Inder Singh Thakur and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr (alongwith connected matter), decided on 7.4.2025 and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call

2

for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.

Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Inder Singh Thakur (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of the instant order, shall

3

afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking

order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.

September 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge