Disposed

Ayodhya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15922/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations regarding the Assured Career Progression Scheme (4-9-14) within six weeks, taking into account the Sanjay Kumar judgment, without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to decide representations regarding Assured Career Progression Scheme within six weeks.

Ayodhya Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15920 connected ma Decided on: 15 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15920 of 2026	of 2026 alongwith tters ^thSeptember, 2026 -----------------------------
Partap Singh	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------	-----------------------------
2. CWP No.15921 of 2026
Madhu Bala	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------	-----------------------------
3. CWP No.15922 of 2026
Ayodhya Devi	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
4. CWP No.15923 of 2026
Dharm Bir Singh	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------- Coram	.....Respondents -----------------------------

¶3

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶4

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶5

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

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioners: Mr. Virbahadur Verma and Ms. Anu Minhas, Advocates.

¶8

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional

¶11

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

¶12

2. Petitioners seek benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (4-9-14). Their grievance is that their representations dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P-2 in all these matters) seeking applicability of Sanjay Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others² have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶13

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the

¶14

2 CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 01.11.2023

¶15

¶16

respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶17

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶18

any.

¶19

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Ayodhya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayodhya Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases