Khem Chand and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Khem Chand and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in light of the Sanjay Kumar judgment expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, after affording an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioners are found similarly situated. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to consider and decide the petitioners' representations in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar (CWPOA No.5536 of 2020) and extend similar benefits if the petitioners are similarly situated.

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 petitioners' representations in light of the Sanjay Kumar judgment, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The authority deciding the representations shall afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order thereafter.

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are found to be similarly situated to the petitioners in the Sanjay Kumar judgment, they would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No.18021 of 2025 (Khem Chand & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), decided 21.11.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J. Before any reply was received, petitioners' counsel stated on instructions that the petitioners would be content if their representations were considered and decided in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWPOA No.5536 of 2020; the learned Additional Advocate General fairly undertook expeditious consideration of any representation filed. Without going into merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations (Annexure P-2 colly) in light of the Sanjay Kumar judgment expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and passing a speaking order; if the petitioners are found similarly situated to the petitioners in that judgment, similar benefits are to be extended. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18021 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

Khem Chand & Anr.

……...Petitioners

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Versus
	…....Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their representations are considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. alongwith connected matters .

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

2

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioners have already filed representations for redressal of their grievance (Annexure P-2 colly), 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 representations of the petitioners in light of judgment passed by this Court in Sanjay Kumar ( 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 petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. In case, petitioners are found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, they would be extended similar benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

November 21, 2025 (sunil)

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge