Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/18408/2026 on 15 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.18408 of 2026
Date of Decision: 15.10.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Rakesh Kumar
……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1, 2 and 5-State. ___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Notice confined to respondents No.1, 2 & 5 which is waived by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General.
2. Petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to include his family in the list of those eligible for employment under the Resettlement and Rehabilitation Plan, Parbati Hydro-electric Project, Stage-III District Kullu, H.P. and then to provide employment to the petitioner befittng his educational qualifications. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that Resettlement and Rehabilitation Scheme for the project affected families of Parbati Hydroelectric Project was notified on 27.04.2006; Petitioner’s family though eligible was not included in the project affected families and thus was deprived from employment; Despite representation preferred by the petitioner on 05.07.2026 High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:00:40 :::CIS
2 (Annexure P-4), the respondents have not as yet responded to the petitioner’s requests.
3. In view of nature of grievance of the petitioner and considering the time factor involved in instituting this writ petition, it is deemed appropriate to dispose it of without examining merits thereof but with direction to respondent No.2/Competent Authority to consider the aforesaid representations of the petitioner in accordance with law and take appropriate call thereupon keeping in view the applicable scheme as also the impact of lapse of time period, if any, on the claim of the petitioner. In process of deciding the representations, due opportunity of hearing be given to all stake holders including the petitioner and respondents No. 3 & 4. The decision be taken within six weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
October 15, 2026
(Sandeep Sharma), (sunil)
Judge
High Court of H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 17:00:40 :::CIS