Sanjay Singh Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Singh Thakur and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) in accordance with law within eight weeks, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other stakeholders if considered necessary, and to communicate the decision; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed (by writ of mandamus) to decide the petitioners' representation dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) — seeking review and amendment of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1985 for increased cadre strength and promotion benefits — within a fixed time schedule, by passing a speaking order after affording personal hearing.

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents/competent authority.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representation in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other stakeholders if considered necessary.

Key takeaways

The decision so arrived at on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioners.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — Mandamus for decision of representation — Service matters (promotion/cadre strength). Petitioners (employees) sought a direction to the State of H.P. and the respondent-Corporation to decide their representation dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) praying for review and amendment of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1985 (amended up to date, 2015) so as to provide promotion benefits by increasing cadre strength in different trades. The Additional Advocate General was not averse to the prayer for a time-bound decision. Holding: without examining the merits, the Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge) disposed of CWP No.16278 of 2025 directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within eight weeks, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other stakeholders if considered necessary, and to communicate the decision so arrived at; pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.16278 of 2025

Decided on: 15.10.2025

Sanjay Singh Thakur and Ors …..Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. and Anr

.....Respondents

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioners: Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive prayer:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

2

(Annexure P-1) o and representation may kindly be ordered to be decided by passing speaking order, and petitioners be provided personal hearing.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have preferred a representation dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) with the prayer for reviewing and amending the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 1985 (amended up to date, 2015) for providing benefits of promotion by increasing cadre strength in different trades of the respondent-Corporation.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be content in case respondents /competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other

3

stake holders, if considered necessary. The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioners.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 15, 2025 Judge R.Atal