Disposed¶21

Chander Shekhar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC22 May 2025CWP/6472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chander Shekhar v. State of H.P.; CWP No.6472 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; pay fixation anomaly; NDI correction to 01.11.2010; orders dated 22.05.2014 and 14.08.2014 (Annexures P-1 & P-2); representation dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5); writ petition disposed of without examining merits with direction to competent authority to decide representation within six weeks; arrears with 18% interest claimed but not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; merits of the pay-fixation/NDI grievance were not examined and no monetary relief was awarded. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders dated 22.05.2014 and 14.08.2014 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) are unconstitutional, illegal and liable to be quashed. +2 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

With the consent of learned counsel that the matter be heard at that stage, the Court, expressly without examining the merits, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within six weeks, and to communicate the decision so arrived at to the petitioner.

¶21

Key takeaways

Along with the writ petition, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of in the same terms.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chander Shekhar v. State of H.P. and others, CWP No.6472 of 2025 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 22.05.2025, Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua): The petitioner, who had sought (i) quashing of orders dated 22.05.2014 and 14.08.2014 (Annexures P-1 & P-2) as unconstitutional and illegal, (ii) correction of the NDI in his pay fixation to 01.11.2010 instead of 01.11.2011, and (iii) arrears with interest @ 18% per annum, had made a representation to respondent No.2 on 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5). With consent of counsel, the matter was heard at that stage itself, and the Court, expressly without examining the merits, disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide that representation in accordance with law within six weeks and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No statutory provision or precedent was cited; the merits of the pay-fixation grievance remain undecided.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.6472 of 2025

¶3

Decided on: 22^nd May, 2025

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chander Shekhar …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

¶13

3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶14

“(a) To issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned orders dated 22.05.2014 and 14.08.2014 being Annexures P-1 & P-2 of the writ petition, as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law;

¶15

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to rectify the anomaly in the petitioner’s pay fixation by correcting the NDI to 01.11.2010 instead of 01.11.2011.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

(c) To direct the respondents to pay the arrears due to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of payment.”

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶20

the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.2 on 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5) for claiming the above reliefs. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶21

5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶22

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

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶24

May 22, 2025 Mukesh

Chander Shekhar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chander Shekhar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Bishan Dev Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dr Ashish Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

Krishni Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sanjeev Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhagat Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others