This judgment disposed of six connected writ petitions by directing the State of Himachal Pradesh to consider specific representations filed by the petitioners in accordance with a prior judgment within six weeks.
Direction to respondents to consider and decide the petitioners' representations under Inder Singh Thakur case within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| 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 ---------------------------- |
2
6. CWP No.16000 of 2026 Reema Devi …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. CWP No.16004 of 2026 Sunil Dutt …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15952 & 15977 of 2026.
Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15972 & 15980 of 2026.
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP No.15988 of 2026.
Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates, in CWP Nos.16000 & 16004 of 2026.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
3
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their
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.
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.
2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025
4
The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to
the petitioners.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
September 15, 2026 Mukesh
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents were directed to consider and decide specific representations made by the petitioners within a fixed time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.Referred¶23
Jivan Kumar and others
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
