Disposed

Jarmo v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Jan 2026CWP/21106/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking pension benefits on the terms that the petitioner file a representation within two weeks and the authority decide within six weeks. The court noted the petitioner had not initially exhausted the statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of on terms: Petitioner to file representation within two weeks; competent authority to consider and decide within further six weeks.

Jarmo Vs the State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 21106/2025 Decided on: 06.01.2026

¶3

Jarmo …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶6

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J.

¶12

Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and 3 respectively.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking applicability of Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.² Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh

¶14

and others³ towards pension.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018

¶17

3Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022

¶18

¶19

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievance raised in the writ petition.

¶20

4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring his representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶21

The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Jarmo v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarmo 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Devi Vs the State of Hp Others

Laxmi Chand Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Vishal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mohd Nazir Vs Hrtc and Others

Pawan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Another

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another