Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/1099/2019 on 13 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
AT SHIMLA
CWPOA No.1099 of 2019
Decided on: 13.10.2026 __________________________________________________________
Attar Chand
.....Petitioner
Versus
The State of HP and others
....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Ms. Vandana Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner had filed instant writ petition i.e. CWP No.5988 of before this Court; and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal; and now upon its abolition, the same has been re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.1099 of 2019, seeking the following relief:- “6 (i) That Annexures P-1 and P-2 may be quashed”.
2. Upon issuance of notice, Respondents have filed
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Reply-Affidavit dated 25.09.2018 of Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Hamirpur, whereby, seniority in the cadre Technician was re-casted in Three-Tier Pay Scale and since the petitioner did not fall within the ratio of 20% meant for Technician Grade-I, therefore, the petitioner was inducted as Technician Grade-II under 30% ratio in accordance with the Government Instructions, and therefore, the claim, was opposed by the State Authorities.
3. Upon listing of matter today, Ms. Vandana Thakur, Learned Counsel, on Instructions of Mr. A.K. Gupta, Learned Original Counsel, as received from the petitioner, submits that due to subsequent events, petitioner does not intend to pursue the instant petition hereinafter [Statement Taken on Record].
4. Prayer, being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned State Counsel also.
5. Considering the statement made by Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, as above, nothing survives for determination and the present petition is closed.
In aforesaid terms, instant petition and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge October 13, 2026
[Bhardwaj]