Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18952/2026 on 26 October 2026
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.18952 of 2026
Decided on: 26th October, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gopal Singh
…..Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and others
.....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawan K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shivank S. Panta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Shivank S. Panta, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3.
2. In view of the grievance of the petitioner and the order being passed hereinafter, there is no necessity to issue notice to private respondents No.4 to 6. Reply on behalf of the appearing respondents is also not required to called. Matter has accordingly been heard at this stage.
1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition relates to his promotion to the post of Floor Assistant based on his eligibility and existing seniority. That despite availability of vacancies in the promotional post, the respondents are not making any promotions. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already preferred a representation on 10.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) ventilating his grievances with a request to the respondents to make promotions to the post in question, but the representation has not been responded to till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3-Corporation is not averse to this prayer.
4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-8) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 26, 2026
Judge Mukesh