Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWPOA/11941/2008 on 30 December 2010
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 (T) No. 11941/2008 Decided on:30.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Bhag Mal.
…Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. and others.
…Respondents.
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No.1 to 3.
None for respondents No. 4 and 5.
_____________________________________________________
Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).
Petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance by way of O.A.No.3579/2003. The same was directed to be treated as representation to the Principal Secretary (Education) on 16.12.2003. Thereafter the Principal Secretary decided the matter as is evident from Annexure A-4 dated 28.4.2004. The Director of Education was directed to do the needful as per the observations made by the Principal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13144 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 22:42:50 :::CIS
2 Secretary (Education) while considering and deciding the representation made by the petitioner. However, surprisingly, the Director of Education instead of implementing the order himself directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the matter, as per Annexure A-4. The Deputy Director of Education dismissed the claim of the petitioner on 29.1.2005 vide Annexure A-5. The Court is of the considered opinion that the matter was required to be looked into and final decision was to be taken by the Director of Education and he had no authority to send the matter to the Deputy Director of Education.
2. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-5 dated 29.1.2005 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to do the needful, as per the observations made by the Principal Secretary (Education), within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma),
Judge 30.12.2010
*awasthi* High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13144 ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 22:42:50 :::CIS