Disposed

Neelam Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/16374/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions sought application of the Ghanshyam Dass judgment. The Additional Advocate General informed the court that the Division Bench had stayed that judgment in LPA No. 205 of 2025. Consequently, the court declined to grant the relief at this stage and disposed of the petitions with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases within six weeks after the adjudication of the LPA.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' cases within six weeks after adjudication of LPA No. 205 of 2025.

Neelam Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16359 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 21^stSeptember, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No.16359 of 2026
Santosh Kumar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.16360 of 2026
Rita Chauhan …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another .....Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CWP No.16363 of 2026
Narender Kumar and another …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No.16373 of 2026
Daljeet Kaur and others …..Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶2

5. CWP No.16374 of 2026	2
Neelam Kumari		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.16375 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Tajender Singh		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.16382 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Varsha Gupta and others		…..Petitioners
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.16392 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Bimla Devi		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others		.....Respondents
-------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.16397 of 2026	-----------------	------------------------------
Manju		…..Petitioner
	Versus
State of H.P. and others --------------------------------------	-----------------	.....Respondents ------------------------------

¶3

¶4

10. CWP No.16398 of 2026

¶5

Seema Devi …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioners: Ms. Sarita Rana, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate in CWP No.16359 of 2026. Mr. Rocky, Advocate, in CWP Nos.16360 and 16398 of 2026. Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate, in CWP Nos.16363, 16373, 16374, 16375, 16382, 16392 and 16397 of 2026.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocates General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

Petitioners seek applicability of Ghanshyam

¶15

Dass and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors² .

¶16

2. Learned Additional Advocate General has

¶17

apprised that the aforesaid decision has been stayed under order dated 17.08.2026 passed in LPA No.205 of 2025 and

¶18

other connected matters .

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶24

any.

¶25

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 21, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Neelam Kumari v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Kumari 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