Sushma Devi Vs State of Hp and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Sushma Devi Vs State of Hp and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks; the competent authority to consider and decide it in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks and to communicate the order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. No substantive compensation awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to pay the petitioner compensation equal to the total emoluments she would have received had she been in service until she attained the age of 60 years, along with consequential retrial benefits. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for redressal of her grievances; on this basis, and with counsel undertaking to prefer a representation within two weeks, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the competent authority to deal with it.

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner prefers the representation within two weeks, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks, and the order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge) - CWP No.3456 of 2025, decided 13.03.2025. Petitioner Sushma Devi sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (State of H.P. & Anr.) to pay compensation equal to the total emoluments she would have received had she been in service until attaining the age of 60 years, along with consequential retrial benefits, and a time-bound decision of her representation. Observing that the petitioner had invoked the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without preferring any representation to the competent authority, and upon counsel's submission that a representation would be preferred within two weeks, the Court disposed of the writ petition directing that the competent authority shall consider and decide the representation, in accordance with law, within a further period of six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood disposed of likewise.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3456 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.03.2025

Sushma Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge . Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Notice.Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate

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

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):-

“i). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may : kindly be issued directing respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner equal to the total emoluments which she would have received had she been in service until she has attained the age of 60 years along with consequential retrial benefits in the interest of justice.

(ii) That the respondent department may kindly. be directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner within time bound manner.”

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

-2-

Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition.

Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

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

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13^th March, 2025 Judge

(Pardeep)