Janko Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Mar 2025CWP/1695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Janko Devi; State of Himachal Pradesh; CWP No.1695 of 2025; Satya Devi; CWP No. 2274 of 2021; judgment dated 29.6.2024; similarly situated/situate; similar benefits; representation; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; disposed of. Single-judge (Sandeep Sharma, J.) oral disposal directing consideration of petitioner's case in light of earlier Division Bench judgment of the same Court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Satya Devi's case (judgment dated 29.6.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021), expeditiously preferably within four weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situated. All pending applications stand disposed of. ¶¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's case should be considered and decided in terms of the judgment dated 29.6.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors), with similar benefits extended if she is found similarly situated.

¶¶10

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the Division Bench judgment dated 29.6.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi); no prejudice would be caused to either party in directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Petition disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a representation within one week; respondents to consider and decide the case in light of Satya Devi's case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, and to extend similar benefits if the petitioner is found similarly situated.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The authority concerned shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order while doing the needful in terms of the instant order.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.1695 of 2025, Janko Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided 10.3.2025: On the petitioner's counsel stating that his client would be content with directions to consider and decide her case in terms of the Division Bench judgment dated 29.6.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors), and the Additional Advocate General not being averse, the Court found the issue raised in the petition already stands adjudicated in that judgment. The petition was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a representation within one week, and to the respondents to consider and decide the case in light of Satya Devi's case expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, extending similar benefits if the petitioner is found similarly situated, subject to affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.1695 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.3.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Janko Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶4

……...Petitioner Versus …....Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

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

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate.

¶8

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

¶9

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to consider and decide case of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 29.6.2024, passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, case titled as “Satya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors (a/w other connected

¶11

matters)” in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied

¶14

upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

¶15

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file representation within one week to the respondents, who in turn shall consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Satya Devi’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶16

March 10, 2025 (manjit)

Janko Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janko 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Dev Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Deepak Raj and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rishu Puri Vs the State of Hp and Others

Veena Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Chamel Chand Vs Cskhpkv