Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/20441/2025 of VINOD KUMAR Vs THE HPTDCL AND OTHERS on 31 December 2025
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HPTDC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
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.20441 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HPTDC and Others
….Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Panta, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 24.02.2022, passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6628 of 2021, titled Anil Kumar Goel Vs. HPTDC and Another, along with connected matters in a time bound manner.
2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. S.S. Panta, Advocate, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. 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 appropriate orders thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 31, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)