Disposed¶17

Suman Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2025CWP/1636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP No.1636 of 2025; decided 10.03.2025; Suman Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors.; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; writ of mandamus; two due increments; new scheme Annexure P-1; Assured Carrier Prospects Scheme; notification dated 27.09.2012; letter dated 26.07.2021 Annexure P-8; Article 226 Constitution of India; no prior representation; representation to be decided within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction that upon the petitioner preferring a representation within two weeks, the competent authority shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶17

Suman Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1636 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.03.2025

¶3

Suman Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶4

Coram:

¶5

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the petitioner : Mr. Prikshit, Advocate, vice Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate

¶9

General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature thereof to direct the respondents to grant two due increments in favor of the petitioner in terms of new scheme Annexure P-1 along with all financial benefits from the due date of increment.

¶12

B. Issue writ of mandamus or direction in the nature thereof to direct the respondents not to make applicable notification dated 27.09.2012,affecting the new rights accrued in terms of Assured Carrier Prospects Scheme, with further direction to consider the cases of the petitioner as per letter dated 26.07.2021, Annexure P-8.”

¶13

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

-2-

¶15

Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of her grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶16

Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 10^th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)

Suman Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishu Sehgal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Parveen Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anil Kumar Walia Vs the State of Hp and Others

Anand Moudgil Vs R.D. Nazeem and Others

Amita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others