Krishni Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 May 2025CWP/4556/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pension; counting of daily wage service; Sunder Singh's Case; Balo Devi Case; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition filed without prior representation; representation to competent authority to be decided within six weeks; writ petition disposed of; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Krishni Devi v. State of H.P.; CWP No.4556 of 2025; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.; 13.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted. Writ petition disposed of with liberty/direction: petitioner to prefer representation within two weeks; competent authority to consider and decide it in accordance with law within a further six weeks and communicate the order to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. ¶¶17

Krishni Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents may be directed to grant pension to the petitioner after counting the services rendered on daily wage, as per the law laid down in Sunder Singh's Case and Balo Devi Case, from the due date with all consequential benefits.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner had admittedly 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 raised in the writ petition.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The Court did not decide the pension entitlement claim; it disposed of the writ petition with the direction that if the petitioner prefers a 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 be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA — CWP No.4556 of 2025, decided 13.05.2025 (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.). Krishni Devi v. State of H.P. & Ors.: Petitioner sought a direction to grant pension after counting services rendered on daily wage, as per the law laid down in Sunder Singh's Case and Balo Devi Case, with consequential benefits. Noting that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed without even preferring any representation to the competent authority, the Court disposed of the petition: the petitioner was to prefer a representation within two weeks, and if so preferred, the competent authority was to consider and decide it in accordance with law within a further period of six weeks and communicate the order to her. The entitlement question itself was left undecided; Sunder Singh's Case and Balo Devi Case were only referred in the prayer and not applied by the Court.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.4556 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Krishni Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶3

Coram:

¶4

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

¶5

For the petitioner : Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

¶6

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶7

Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

“i. That the respondents may kindly be ordered to grant pension to the petitioner after counting the services rendered on daily wage service as per the law laid down in Sunder Singh's Case and Balo Devi Case from the due date with all consequential benefits.

¶11

ii. That the respondents may kindly be ordered to grant pension to the petitioner after counting the services rendered on daily wage service as per

¶12

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

¶13

-2-

¶14

the law laid down in Sunder Singh's Case and Balo Devi Case from the due date with all consequential benefits.”

¶15

3. 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 her grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶16

4. 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

Krishni Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishni 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

Statutes considered

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

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another