Dismissed

Meena Kumari Negi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15976/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of three connected writ petitions where petitioners had not preferred representations. The court directed the parties that any representation to be preferred would be decided within six weeks, taking into consideration an earlier judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to prefer representations within two weeks; decision by competent authority within six weeks considering Inder Singh Thakur judgment.

Meena Kumari Negi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15938 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 15^th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.15938 of 2026 Sharwan Jeet …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.15976 of 2026 Meena Kumari Negi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.15993 of 2026 Sudesh Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶2

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

¶3

¶4

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

2. Petitioners seek applicability of Inder Singh

¶8

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.

¶9

3. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 15, 2026 Judge Mukesh

¶12

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

Meena Kumari Negi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Kumari Negi 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