Quashed

Munish Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15933/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition by accepting limited standing for specific petitioners and directing the court to note that no representation for grievance redressal had been filed while referencing prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

Prayer accepted; writ petition disposed of in terms; direction to prefer representation within two weeks.

Munish Sharma and Others Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15933 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 15^th September, 2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Munish Sharma and others …..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶13

this writ petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of petitioners No.1, 2, 18 to 42, 49, 56, 62, 66, 67, 70, 73 and 75. Learned counsel further submits that the remaining petitioners be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy by filing separate writ petition(s) for the redressal of their grievances raised in this writ petition. Prayer is accepted.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition shall be treated to

¶17

have been filed to the extent prayed for. Remaining petitioners shall be at liberty to file separate writ petition(s) for the redressal of their grievances in accordance with law.

¶18

2. Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶19

3. Petitioners seek applicability of Inder Singh

¶20

Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² . It is, however, seen from the record that the petitioners have not preferred any representation for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petition.

¶21

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring a representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶22

2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025

¶23

¶24

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶25

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

¶26

any.

¶27

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Munish Sharma and Others v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Sharma and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases