Disposed

Vimla Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2026CWP/15994/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposes of a writ petition seeking applicability of specific precedents bearing on work-grievances. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation. The court directed the competent authority to decide the representation within specified timelines and adjourned the pending miscellaneous applications in light of this direction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a representation within two weeks; authority to decide within six weeks.

Vimla Devi Vs the State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.15994 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 15^th September, 2026

¶4

Vimla Devi …..Petitioner

¶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 Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶12

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

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

¶15

Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parveen Chauhan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.

¶16

2. Petitioner seeks applicability of Sunder Singh

¶17

Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.² , Balo

¶18

Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and

¶19

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018

¶20

¶21

others³ and Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others⁴ . It is seen from the record that though the petitioner has preferred a representation (Annexure P-6) to the respondents for the redressal of her grievances, however, the aforesaid representation does not seek redressal of all the reliefs, which the petitioner has primarily claimed in this writ petition.

¶22

3. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation 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 petitioner.

¶23

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

¶24

September 15, 2026 Mukesh

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶26