Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/2910/2017 on 27 December 2017
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. 2910 of 2017
Decided on: 27.12.2017
Shri Ram Singh
.......Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others.
…...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. M.A. Khan, Addl. A.G with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G and Mr. Kush Sharma, Dy.A.G.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this writ petition, the response of the respondents is not required.
2. The order under challenge has been passed by Himachal Pradesh Tribunal camp at Mandi in O.A(M) No. 638/17, whereby the respondents have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
of judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 7140/12 titled Gian Singh v. State of H.P and others, decided on 24.09.2014.
3. The complaint is that all points raised in the original application have not been taken up for decision by learned Tribunal. However, we are not in agreement with the submissions so made by learned counsel for the reason that the impugned order has been passed in view of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner- original-applicant that he is entitled to the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Gian Singh’s case supra. We can appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner as he is going to retire on 31st December, 2017, whereas, vide impugned order, the matter has been ordered to be decided by the competent authority within two months, certainly beyond the period of 31st December, 2017. Though, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out, however, in view of the retirement of the petitioner-original applicant on 31st December, 2017, we direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner-original applicant on 29th December, 2017 and take a conscious decision in terms of judgment of this Court in Gian Singh’s case supra. The petitioner-original applicant, if so advised shall remain present in person before the 2nd respondent on the date fixed. The said respondent shall supply a copy of order to the petitioner well before 31st December, 2017, enabling him to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his surviving grievance(s), if any, on all available grounds including the one he raised in the original application, in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to learned Additional Advocate General and also learned counsel for the petitioner-original applicant for compliance. (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
Judge
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
December 27, 2017
(naveen)