Disposed¶19

Chet Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 May 2026CWP/5744/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chet Ram v. State of HP and others; CWP No. 5744 of 2020; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral); decided 08.05.2026; writ of mandamus; benefit of one increment w.e.f. 01.12.1985; parity with junior employee Shri Kirpa Ram; consequential and retiral benefits; interest @ 12% per annum; representation dated 20.03.2020 (Annexure P-8); claim rejected vide office order dated 08.04.2026 (Annexure R-3/1); petition disposed of with liberty reserved to assail the rejection order; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of; merits not adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail the order dated 08.04.2026; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶19

Chet Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:HHC:15377 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5744 of 2020. Date of Decision: 08.05.2026.

¶3

____________ ___________________________________________ Chet Ram …….Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of HP and others … Respondents.

¶6

_______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vishwa Deep Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶8

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral).

¶9

The petitioner by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive reliefs;

¶10

(i) That the Writ of mandamus that may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay the benefit of one increment w.e.f. 01.12.1985, like Shri Kirpa Ram (Junior to the petitioner) with all consequential benefits including retiral benefits alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization.

¶11

(ii) That the record of the case may kindly be called for.

¶12

(iii) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

( 2026:HHC:15377 )

¶16

dated 20.03.2020, Annexure P-8, of the petitioner within a time bound manner.

¶17

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have taken a call on the representation dated 20.03.2020 and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide office order dated 08.04.2026 as is evident from Annexure R-3/1.

¶18

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed of, reserving liberty to assail the order dated 08.04.2026.

¶19

In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to assail the order dated 08.04.2026.

¶20

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

¶21

8^th May, 2026 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj), (Ritu) Judge

Chet Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chet Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hpsebl Vs Naresh Kumar

Indri Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Irfan Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Narvada Devi and Others Vs the Hrtc and Others

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Shyam Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others