Irshad Mohamad Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Irshad Mohamad Vs the State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the judgment in Yashwant Kumar (CWP No.8148 of 2022, dated 21.03.2024), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; similar benefits to be extended if the petitioner is found similarly situated, after affording an opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) should be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Yashwant Kumar (CWP No.8148 of 2022, decided 21.03.2024), 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 the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashwant Kumar (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 Yashwant Kumar judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

Key takeaways

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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No.19177 of 2025, decided 05.12.2025) disposed of at the notice stage on the statement of counsel, without calling for a reply: the Court directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representation (Annexure P-3) in light of the Coordinate Bench judgment in Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, CWP No.8148 of 2022 (decided 21.03.2024), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks. If the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioners in that judgment, similar benefits are to be extended; the authority must afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.19177 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.12.2025

__________________________________________________________ Irshad Mohamad …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Rocky, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State.

__________________________________________________________ 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 21.03.2024 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8148 of 2022, titled as Yashwant Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others , along with connected matters, 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court in Yashwant Kumar (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, stand disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

December 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)