Allowed

Ram Rattan v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16209/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner's representation seeking applicability of a prior judgment (Sanjay Kumar vs State of H.P.) had not been decided by the competent authority. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and the cited judgment within six weeks, without examining the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 23.10.2025 in accordance with law and the Sanjay Kumar judgment within six weeks; order to be communicated to petitioner.

Ram Rattan 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. 16209/2026 Decided on: 18.09.2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ram Rattan …..Petitioner Versus

¶4

State of H.P. & Ors.

¶5

.....Respondents

¶6

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

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

2. Petitioner’s grievance is that his representation dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) seeking applicability of Sanjay Kumar

¶13

Versus State of H.P. & Ors.² has not been decided till date by the respondents/ competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law

¶14

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

¶15

2 CWPOA No. 5536/2020, decided alongwith connected matter on 01.11.2023

¶16

¶17

within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate

¶18

General has no objection to this prayer.

¶19

Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, 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 petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶21

18^th September, 2026 rohit

Ram Rattan v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Rattan 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