Disposed¶10

Maya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC2 May 2025CWP/3773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.; CWP No.3773 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 2.5.2025; Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral); petition disposed with direction to decide case in light of Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWP No. 2500 of 2021, judgment dated 7.7.2023; similar benefits to similarly situate persons; opportunity of hearing; speaking order; four weeks timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide petitioner's case in light of Ranjit Singh's case (CWP No. 2500 of 2021, judgment dated 7.7.2023), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; similar benefits to be extended if petitioner is found similarly situate; opportunity of hearing and speaking order mandated; pending applications disposed of. ¶10

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents can be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 7.7.2023 rendered by the Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 (Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.), in a time bound manner.

¶7

Court's answer

The issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 (Ranjit Singh), and no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of that judgment.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Ranjit Singh's case, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.

¶10

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the Ranjit Singh judgment, she would be extended similar benefits.ratio¶10
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¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Sandeep Sharma, J., oral) — CWP No.3773 of 2025, Maya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., decided 2.5.2025: Writ petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the judgment dated 7.7.2023 of a Coordinate Bench of the Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021, Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (alongwith connected matters), expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; if the petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in that judgment, she would be extended similar benefits; the authority concerned to afford an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order; all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3773 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Maya Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶3

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

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Whether approved for	andeep Sharma, Judge. reporting?
For the Petitioner:	Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocates.
For the respondents: _________________________	Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________

¶6

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 7.7.2023 , rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2500 of 2021 , titled as “Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.” (alongwith connected matters) in a time bound manner. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

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 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.

¶10

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of Ranjit Singh’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 thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶11

May 2, 2025

¶12

(manjit)

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Maya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya 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

Yash Pal Bansal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Shobha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Roop Singh Vs the Hpsfc and Others

Lekh Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Roshan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Chandresh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others