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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-3) expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, in light of the judgment dated 07.04.2016 in CWP No.2467 of 2015 (Villam Singh); similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situated; opportunity of hearing and speaking order directed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) is required to be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the judgment dated 07.04.2016 in CWP No.2467 of 2015 (Villam Singh v. State of H.P. and Others), and whether the petitioner, if similarly situated, is entitled to similar benefits.

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Villam Singh (supra); therefore there is no impediment in issuing a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in light of that judgment in a time bound manner.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of the Villam Singh judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situated to the petitioners in the Villam Singh judgment, he would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶11
The authority concerned, while acting in terms of the order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (CWP No.18901 of 2025, decided 02.12.2025) — Disposed of at the threshold without calling for a reply — Petitioner sought consideration of his pending representation (Annexure P-3) by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment dated 07.04.2016 in CWP No.2467 of 2015, Villam Singh v. State of H.P. and Others — Held: the issue raised already stands adjudicated in Villam Singh; respondents directed to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; if the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners in that judgment, similar benefits to be extended; opportunity of hearing and a speaking order directed (¶¶5, 10, 11). Pending applications disposed of (¶12).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.18901 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025

__________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral) :

Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-3) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment dated 07.04.2016 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2467 of 2015, titled as Villam Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Others , in a time bound manner.

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Advocate

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

General, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be decided expeditiously.

Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Villam Singh (supra), as such, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner.

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of judgment, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners 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 speaking order thereupon.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)