Disposed

Shivender Dutt and Anr. v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/16255/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought direction to the respondents to decide their representations seeking applicability of a prior judgment. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the competent authority to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law and the cited judgment within six weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law and the judgment in Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. within six weeks and communicate the decision.

Shivender Dutt and Anr. Vs the State of Hp… — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.16255 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 18^th September, 2026

¶4

Shivender Dutt and another …..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and another .....Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pavan Thakur and Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶12

Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy

¶13

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶14

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their

¶15

representations dated 22.08.2026 (Annexure P-2) seeking applicability of Inder Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus State

¶16

of H.P. & Ors.² have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the

¶17

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

¶18

2 CWP No.4830 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matter on 07.04.2025

¶19

¶20

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 Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶21

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-2) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶22

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

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶24

September 18, 2026 Mukesh

Shivender Dutt and Anr. v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivender Dutt and Anr. 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