Petition sought a direction to decide her representation seeking benefit of an earlier Division Bench decision. Court, without examining merits, disposed of the petition directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks and communicate the outcome.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.176 of 2026
Decided on: 6th January, 2026
Nisha Kumari …..Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is heard at this stage.
3. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation (Annexure P-5) seeking applicability of Mohit Sharma &
Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2 has not been decided
till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
2 CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024
2
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 within a fixed-time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.
4. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Mohit Sharma2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
January 06, 2026 Mukesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the competent authority should be directed to decide the petitioner's representation seeking applicability of the Mohit Sharma judgment within a fixed time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohit Sharma & Anr. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.Relied on¶3
CWP No.1638 of 2024, decided on 29.11.2024
Nisha Kumari
State of H.P.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
