Disposed

Sudha Mehta v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16203/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions were filed by government employees seeking the benefit of a prior decision (Ghanshyam Dass) that had been stayed by the appellate court in LPA No. 205 of 2025. The High Court held that since the precedent decision was under stay, the relief claimed could not be granted at this stage. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases within six weeks after the adjudication of the pending LPA.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with direction to respondents to consider petitioners' cases within six weeks after adjudication of LPA No. 205 of 2025

Sudha Mehta 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. 16194/2026 a/w connected matters Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶3

------- 1.	---------------------------------- CWP No. 16194/2026	------------	--------------------------------
Trilok	Nath		…..Petitioner
		Versus
State	of H.P. and Ors.		.....Respondents
2.	CWP No. 16199/2026
Sunil	Kutlhiria & Ors.		…..Petitioners
		Versus
State	of H.P. and Ors.		.....Respondents
3.	CWP No. 16196/2026
Rajes	h Kumar		…..Petitioner
		Versus
State	of H.P. and Ors.		.....Respondents
4.	CWP No. 16207/2026
Rajni	Kumari		…..Petitioner
		Versus
State	of H.P. and Ors.		.....Respondents
5.	CWP No. 16203/2026
Sudh	a Mehta		…..Petitioners
		Versus
State	of H.P. and Ors.		.....Respondents
6.	CWP No. 16204/2026
Yash	Paul		…..Petitioner

¶4

¶5

Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents 7. CWP No. 16205/2026 Anupama Makhaik …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents 8. CWP No. 16206/2026 Saroj Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents

¶6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.A. Safee, Ms. Mamta Garg & Mr. Rocky, Advocates, for the petitioners in the respective petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶9

Petitioners seek applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors² .

¶10

2. Learned Additional Advocate General has apprised

¶11

that the aforesaid decision has been stayed under order dated

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

17.08.2026 passed in LPA No.205 of 2025 and other connected

¶16

matters .

¶17

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 cases of the petitioners within six weeks after the adjudication of LPA No.205 of 2025 and in terms thereof.

¶18

With the above observations, these writ petitions

¶19

stand disposed of.

¶20

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to

¶21

stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 18^th September, 2026 Judge rohit

Sudha Mehta v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Mehta 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