Suresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC13 May 2025CWP/4302/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suresh Kumar Sharma v. State of H.P., CWP No.4302 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.), decided 13.05.2025 — seniority list correction; date of joining Dec 1992 vs 24-12-1994; District Kullu seniority; benefit of pyre lal judgment; Hari Chand v. State of H.P.; representation dated 22.01.2025; direction to competent authority; six-week time limit; disposal without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law and in light of the Hari Chand judgments within six weeks from the date of the order, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; writ petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶19-21

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19-21

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to extend to the petitioner the benefit of the judgment in pyre lal (C.W.P. (T) no 6801/2020) with all consequential benefits, and to correct the petitioner's date of joining in serial no. 5 of the seniority list of District Kullu as Dec 1992 instead of 24-12-1994.

¶11

Court's answer

Without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representations in accordance with law and taking into consideration the Hari Chand judgments (CWP No.2010 of 2020, decided on 15.07.2020), within six weeks, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioners.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition disposed of without entering upon merits — Direction to decide pending representation. The petitioner, seeking extension of the benefit of the judgment in pyre lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh (C.W.P. (T) no 6801/2020, decided on 28.2.2011) with consequential benefits, and correction of his date of joining in serial no. 5 of the seniority list of District Kullu from 24-12-1994 to Dec 1992, had a representation dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) pending before the respondents. His case had earlier been adjudicated in Hari Chand v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.2010 of 2020, decided on 15.07.2020). Counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to a time-bound decision on the representation, to which the respondents were not averse. Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and in light of the Hari Chand judgments within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. (Paras 3, 4, 16)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.4302 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.05.2025

¶3

Suresh Kumar Sharma. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram:

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge .

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

For the petitioner : Mr. Munish Datwalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶9

2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶10

“A. That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High court in C.W.P. (T) no 6801/2020 titled as pyre lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 28.2.2011 and to the petitioner forthwith all consequential benefits.

¶11

B. That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and respondents may kindly be directed to correct the date joining as Dec 1992 instead 24-12-1994 in serial no 5 in the seniority list of District Kullu of the respective petitioner along with other consequences benefits.”

¶12

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

¶13

-2-

¶14

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶15

the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him has already been considered & adjudicated upon in Hari Chand vs. State of H.P. & Ors.¹ . Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that representation dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) preferred by the petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representations within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer.

¶16

4 . Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Hari Chand¹ within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

1CWP No.2010 of 2020 decided on 15.07.2020.

¶18

-3-

¶19

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶20

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶21

any.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 13^th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)

Suresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

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

Prof. Arvind Kumar Agrawal Vs Union of India and Anr.

Rajgir Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Asha Rani Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rooplal Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishni Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others