Disposed

Jivan Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15952/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of seven connected writ petitions directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations regarding the applicability of a specific judgment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations regarding the applicability of Inder Singh Thakur judgment within six weeks.

Jivan Kumar 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.15952 connected mat Decided on: 15	of 2026 alongwith ters ^thSeptember, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.15952 of 2026	----------------------------
Jivan Kumar	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ---------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
2. CWP No.15972 of 2026
Manjosna Devi and others	…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
3. CWP No.15977 of 2026
Dilbag Singh	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ---------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
4. CWP No.15980 of 2026
Vidya Devi and others	…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------
5. CWP No.15988 of 2026
Rakesh Singh	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ---------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ----------------------------

¶3

¶4

6. CWP No.16000 of 2026 Reema Devi …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. CWP No.16004 of 2026 Sunil Dutt …..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15952 & 15977 of 2026.

¶13

Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15972 & 15980 of 2026.

¶14

Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.15988 of 2026.

¶15

Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates, in CWP Nos.16000 & 16004 of 2026.

¶16

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their

¶23

representations (annexed with the respective writ petitions) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² 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.

¶24

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 respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to

¶28

the petitioners.

¶29

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶30

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

¶31

any.

¶32

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Jivan Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jivan Kumar 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