LPA/16/2012 on 31 December 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No.16 of 2012 with LPA No.32 of 2012

Decided on: December 31, 2015.

LPA No.16 of 2012

Dr.(Ms.) Monica Sharma

……….Appellant.

versus

Dr.Y.S. Parmar University and others ………..Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ LPA No.32 of 2012

Dr.Y.S. Paramar University

……….Appellant.

versus

Dr.Manica Tomar and others

………..Respondents. ___________________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? yes LPA No.16 of 2012:

For the Appellant: Mr.Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Nishi Goel, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Komal Kumari, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Amrita Messie, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Nemo for respondents No.3 and 4. LPA No.32 of 2012:

For the Appellant: Ms.Ranjana Parmar, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Komal Kumari, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Amrita Messie, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr.Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

Nemo for respondents No.3 and 4. ___________________________________________________________

…2…

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)

Ms.Amrita Messie, learned counsel for Dr.Manica Tomar, (respondent No.2 in LPA No.16 of 2012 and respondent No.1 in LPA No.32 of 2012), stated at the Bar that the University has redressed the grievance of the said respondent rendering both the Letters Patent Appeals infructuous. The only apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for Dr.Manica Tomar is that the University may not grant the financial benefits to Dr.Manica Tomar at par with Dr.Monica Sharma (appellant in LPA No.16 of 2012 and respondent No.2 in LPA No.32 of 2012) and therefore, prayed that liberty may be reserved to Dr.Manica Tomar to seek appropriate remedy by resorting to appropriate proceedings. Her statement is taken on record.

2. Ms.Nishi Goel, learned counsel for Dr.Monica Sharma (appellant in LPA No.16 of 2012) stated that the writ petition as well as both the Letters Patent Appeals may be disposed of as settled. Her statement is taken on record.

3. In view of the above, coupled with the orders passed by this Court from time to time and the order issued by

…3…

the University, the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeals are disposed of as settled, with liberty to Dr.Manica Tomar to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage.

4. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir)

Chief Justice.

December 31, 2015. (Sureshwar Thakur) (Tilak)

Judge