Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/20815/2025 of RAJINDER KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 31 December 2025
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20815 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20815 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his representation is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.3341 of 2019 titled Madan Lal Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-2) in light of Madan Lal Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. December 31, 2025
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge 2