Disposed

Punam Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15973/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of twelve connected Civil Writ Petitions challenging a decision. The Court held that relief cannot be granted while a stay order remains operative in a connected appeal (LPA No.205 of 2025). The petitions were disposed of directing respondents to consider the cases within six weeks after the adjudication of the stay order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider respective cases of petitioners within six weeks after adjudication of LPA No.205 of 2025.

Punam 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.15941 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 15^thSeptember, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.15941 of 2026
Nirmla Devi and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.15971 of 2026
Dilbag Singh and another …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No.15973 of 2026
Punam Devi …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No.15974 of 2026
Anju …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶3

5. CWP No.15975 of 2026	2
Vijay Kumar Verma		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and another		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.15978 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Ajay Kumar and others		…..Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. and another		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.15979 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Rajeev Kumar and another		…..Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. and another		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.15982 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Veena Devi		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.15983 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Nikke Ram		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶4

¶5

10. CWP No.15984 of 2026 Surjeet Kumar and another	…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------------------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------
11. CWP No.15986 of 2026
Bijali	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 12. CWP No.16003 of 2026	------------------------------
Suman Kumari and others	…..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- 13. CWP No.16018 of 2026	------------------------------
Rekha Devi Tomar	…..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others	.....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------- Coram	------------------------------
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15941 of 2026.

¶9

Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15971 of 2026.

¶10

Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15973 to 15975, 15978, 15979, 15982 to 15984 and 15986 of 2026.

¶11

Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates, in CWP Nos.16003 and 16018 of 2026.

¶12

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

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Petitioners seek applicability of Ghanshyam

¶15

Dass and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors² .

¶16

2. Learned Additional Advocate General has

¶17

apprised that the aforesaid decision has been stayed under order dated 17.08.2026 passed in LPA No.205 of 2025 and other connected matters .

¶18

3. In view of above position, the relief in the nature claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them at this stage. These writ petitions, therefore, are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners within six weeks after the adjudication of LPA No.205 of 2025 and in terms thereof.

¶19

2 CWP No.2056 of 2023 decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024

¶20

¶21

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶22

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

¶23

any.

¶24

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Punam Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases