Disposed¶18

Sunita Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC30 Oct 2025CWP/16854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Time-bound mandamus to decide pending representations claiming applicability of Inder Singh Thakur (CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided 07.04.2025); writ petitions disposed of without examining merits; six-week timeline; communication of decision ordered; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP Nos. 16852, 16854, 16898 of 2025; Sunita Kumari; Sunita Chauhan; Vandana Sharma; State of H.P.; Ms. Parul Negi for petitioners; Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law, taking into consideration the Inder Singh Thakur judgment, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶18

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule.

¶12

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matters, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law, taking into consideration the judgment in Inder Singh Thakur.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The decision on the representations is to be rendered within six weeks, and the decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), decided 30.10.2025 — Three connected writ petitions (CWP Nos. 16852, 16854 and 16898 of 2025: Sunita Kumari, Sunita Chauhan and Vandana Sharma v. State of H.P. and Anr.) raised the grievance that the petitioners' representations, annexed with the writ petitions and seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs. State of H.P. & Ors (CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025), had not been decided by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel stated the petitioners would be content if the authority were directed to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule; the learned Additional Advocate General was not averse. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law, taking the Inder Singh Thakur judgment into consideration, within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of in the same terms.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16852 of 2025 and connected matters Decided on: 30.10. 2025

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.16852 of 2025 Sunita Kumari …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.16854 of 2025 Sunita Chauhan …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.16898 of 2025 Vandana Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Anr .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.

¶11

3. Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors Vs.

¶12

State of H.P. & Ors² have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶13

4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in

¶14

2 CWP No. 4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025.

¶15

¶16

accordance with law as well as taking into consideration

¶17

the above judgment in the case of Inder Singh Thakur² within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶18

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶19

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶20

any.

¶21

October 30, 2025 R.Atal

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Sunita Chauhan v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Chauhan 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kant Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mohinder Singh and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

The Managing Director Hp State the Mall Shimla Cooperative Bank Vs Tanuj Vir Singh Tomar and Others

Neha Saini Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Rajender Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others