Allowed

Jagpal Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/16379/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions were filed by employees seeking directions for the competent authority to decide their pending representations, which sought applicability of the earlier judgment in Mohit Sharma & Anr. v. State of H.P. & Ors. The High Court disposed of the petitions without examining merits, directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations in accordance with law and the Mohit Sharma judgment within six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the petitioners' representations (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law and the Mohit Sharma judgment within six weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

Jagpal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16377 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 21^st September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. CWP No.16377 of 2026 Amit Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. CWP No.16379 of 2026 Jagpal Sharma …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. CWP No.16400 of 2026 Sangeeta Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioners: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶2

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

¶3

¶4

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

2. Petitioners’ grievance is that their

¶8

representations (Annexure P-3 in all these matters) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma & Anr. 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 the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶9

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment within a period of six

¶10

2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024

¶11

¶12

weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be

¶13

communicated to the petitioners.

¶14

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above

¶15

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶16

any.

¶17

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 21, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Jagpal Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagpal Sharma 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