Disposed¶13

Tilkeshwari Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Sept 2025CWP/15181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Earned Leave benefit; regularization delayed from 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2009; writ of mandamus; representation Annexure P-3; direction to decide representation per Coordinate Bench judgment Sunita Sangroli, CWP No.5043 of 2022; six weeks timeline; opportunity of being heard; speaking order; pending applications disposed; State of Himachal Pradesh; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without adjudicating the merits; respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) in light of CWP No.5043 of 2022 (Sunita Sangroli), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording her a hearing and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Earned Leave from 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2009, the delay in regularization of her service being alleged to be the fault of the respondent department.

¶8

Court's answer

Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) for earned leave benefit in light of the judgment of this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022 (Sunita Sangroli), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

While acting on the direction, the authority concerned shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral single-judge order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.) in CWP No.15181 of 2025. Smt. Tilkeshwari Devi sought a writ of mandamus for grant of Earned Leave benefit from 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2009, alleging that the delay in regularization of her service was the fault of the respondent department. Before any reply was received, her counsel confined the petition to a direction that her pending representation (Annexure P-3) be decided in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in CWP No.5043 of 2022, Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.; the learned Additional Advocate General (B.C. Verma) stated he was not averse to this innocuous prayer. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in light of Sunita Sangroli (supra), expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, while affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15181 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.09.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Smt. Tilkeshwari Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath & Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates.

¶4

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

¶5

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶6

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶7

following main relief:

¶8

“(i) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to directing the Respondents to grant beneft of Earned Leavei the petitioner from the due date of regularization i.e. w.e.f 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2009, in view of the fact that the delay in regularization of service of the petitioner is clear cut fault on the part of the respondent department, thus she is entitled for grant of Earned Leave.”

¶9

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her

¶10

¶11

representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWP No.5043 of 2022 titled

¶12

Sunita Sangroli Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. .

¶13

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-3) , this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sunita Sangroli (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶14

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶15

September 19, 2025 (sunil)

¶16

Judge

Tilkeshwari Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilkeshwari Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

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

Himani Laswai Vs Ashwani Kumar Sharma

Suraj Prakash Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bodh Raj and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jitesh Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhagwan Dutt Vs Mansi Sahay Thakur