Disposed¶20

Pradeep Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2025CWP/18636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.18636 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 01.12.2025 by Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; petitioner Pradeep Sharma v. State of H.P.; Home Guards re-enrolment; mandamus; reserve force till age 60; no prior representation to competent authority; representation to be decided within six weeks; writ petition disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner makes a representation within two weeks, the competent authority shall decide it in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and communicate the order passed to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶20

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.18636 of 2025 Decided on: 1^st December, 2025

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pradeep Sharma …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

“(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, whereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to re-enroll the petitioner in active Home Guards service and to serve in the reserve force till the age of 60 years, as per the Act and Rules, with effect from due date, with all consequential benefits alongwith interest.”

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

3. The case file shows that the petitioner has not even represented to the competent authority for his re-enrolment in Home Guard Service.

¶19

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh

Pradeep Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Sharma 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Besi Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Surjeet Singh and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Mohinder Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manorma Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bimla Devi and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another