Dismissed¶23

Parveen Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jun 2026CWP/9391/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, CWP 9391 of 2026, Parveen Kumar v. State of HP, decided 10.06.2026 by Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge. Writ petition challenging police-escort order dated 30.5.2026 (Annexure P-9), seeking mandamus regarding treatment during departmental proceedings and consideration of premature/voluntary retirement. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh after State placed on record communication dated 9.6.2026 redressing main grievance. Counsel: Anshul Jairath (petitioner); Sushant Kaprate, Addl. AG (respondents). No statutes or precedent cases cited; no substantive ruling.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; petition permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as such, with liberty to file a fresh petition if need arises; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶23

Parveen Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 9391 of 2026

¶3

Date of Decision: 10.06.2026.

¶4

Parveen Kumar …….Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others … Respondents. _______________________________________________________

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner: Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional Advocate General. _______________________________________________________

¶9

Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge ( oral ):

¶10

Notice. Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional

¶11

Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

¶12

The preset petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

¶13

“a. That a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ , order or directi8on, may kindly be issued fr quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.5.2026 (Annexure P-9), whereby the petitioner has been

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

directed to be escorted to Police Headquarters through police officials, the same being arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶17

b. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, may kindly be issued directing the respondents to deal with the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and the applicable disciplinary rules and not to treat the petitioner as an absconder, fugitive or a person evading legal process during the pendency of the departmental proceedings.

¶18

c. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of premature retirement/voluntary retirement, in accordance with the applicable rules and police governing the field, keeping in view the serious medical condition of the petitioner’s wife and son, the compelling family circumstances and the inability of the petitioner to continue to effectively discharge his duties on account thereof.”

¶19

Mr. Sushant Kaprate, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 9^th June, 2026, whereby the main grievance of the present petitioner seems to have been redressed.

¶20

¶21