Disposed

Chuni Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16195/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions were filed by employees seeking direction to the State of Himachal Pradesh to decide their representations for applicability of a prior judgment (Inder Singh Thakur). The court disposed of the petitions by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law and the cited judgment within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioners' representations in accordance with law and the Inder Singh Thakur judgment within six weeks; order to be communicated to petitioners.

Chuni Lal 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. 16195/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶3

1. CWP No. 16195/2026

¶4

Chuni Lal		…Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. & Ors		.…Respondents.
2. CWP No. 1620	1/2026
Parveen Kumar Sharm	a & Ors.	…Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. & Anr.		.…Respondents
3. CWP No. 16202	/2026
Shvanandan Kumar &	Ors.	…Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.		.…Respondents
4. CWP No. 1620	0/2026
Vikas Walia & Ors.		…Petitioners
State of H.P. & Ors.	Versus	.…Respondents
5. CWP No. 16197	/2026
Bimla Devi		…Petitioner
State of H.P. & Ors..	Versus	.…Respondents
6. CWP No. 1620	8/2026

¶5

¶6

Narender & Anr. …Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the petitioner: Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Kush Sharma, & Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocates, for the petitioners in the respective petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General in all the petitions.

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶14

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

¶15

General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

Petitioners’ grievance is that their respective representation(s) annexed with these 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, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a

¶17

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025

¶18

¶19

time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer.

¶20

Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of by directing 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. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶22

18^th September, 2026(rohit)

Chuni Lal v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chuni Lal 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