Anju Patyal Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3531 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Anju Patyal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate.

¶4

For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶5

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶6

following main reliefs:

¶7

“(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 3435 of 2020 titled as Satish Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and anr. which judgment has duly been implemented in its letter and spirit vide office order dated 26.06.2024 by issuing a writ of mandamus.

¶8

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2003 in terms of judgment passed in CWPOA No. 3435 of 2020 as well as office order dated 26.06.2024 by issuing a writ of mandamus.”

¶9

2

¶10

Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case her case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 3435 of 2020 titled Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.

¶11

While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.

¶12

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of her grievance (Annexure P-3) , this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Satish Kumar (supra) , expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being

¶13

3

¶14

heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending

¶15

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶16

March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Anju Patyal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Patyal 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

Kaushalya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Charanjeet Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Hira Lal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Hem Singh Vs Rohan Chand Thakuir and Anr.

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp and Others