Disposed¶¶14

Sheela Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Writ Petition – disposal on representation

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2025CWP/3271/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWP No.3271 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), decided 8.4.2025 — writ petition disposed of with direction to decide petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Satya Devi, CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (DB, 29.6.2024), within four weeks; similar benefits if similarly situated; hearing and speaking order required.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Satya Devi's case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; extension of similar benefits if the petitioner is found similarly situated; with an opportunity of hearing and a speaking order. ¶¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in terms of the judgment dated 29.6.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi) in a time bound manner.

¶¶11

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).

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

No prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the aforesaid Satya Devi judgment.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-4) in light of Satya Devi's case, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.ratio¶¶14
If the petitioner is found to be similarly situated to the petitioner in the aforesaid Satya Devi judgment, she would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶¶14
The authority deciding the representation shall afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition — disposal on representation — petitioner sought directions to decide her representation (Annexure P-4) in terms of Division Bench judgment dated 29.6.2024 in Satya Devi v. State of H.P., CWP No. 2274 of 2021 — Court held the issue stood already adjudicated by the Division Bench and no prejudice would be caused in directing consideration in light of that judgment — petition disposed of with direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within four weeks — similar benefits to be extended if petitioner found similarly situated — opportunity of hearing and speaking order mandated.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3271 of 2025 Date of Decision: 8.4.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Sheela Devi

¶4

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

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶6

Coram

¶7

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

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal, Advocate.

¶9

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. ___________________________________________________________________________

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) 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 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 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.

¶14

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) 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, she 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. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶15

April 8, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge

Sheela Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs Hpsebl and Others

Narender Mehta Vs State of Hp and Others

Gian Chand Vs Hrtc and Another

Pushpa Rani Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jyoti Pathania Vs the State of Hp and Another

Shyam Lal Vs State of Hp and Anr.