Himachal Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 11545 of 2011 on 29 December 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11545 of 2011-E
Decided on: 29.12.2011
Sunita Kumari Dhiman, D/o Sh. Kali Dass Dhiman, R/o VPO Balol, Tehsil Baroh, Kangra, HP.
....Petitioner
Versus
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.
1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary Education, Government of HP, Shimla. Education, Government of HP, Shimla.
2. Director of Higher Education, HP, Shimla.
....Respondents
Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge.
For the petitioner For the respondents
:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. :Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. RameshThakur,Assistant Advocate General.
Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
This writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayer:
“(b) That the case of the petitioner for merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay is covered by the judgment delivered by this Hon'ble Court in case titled Nek Ram Vs. State of HP. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same benefit as has been granted to the similarly situated persons for which the petitioner is seeking the kind indulgence of this Hon'ble Court.”
2. The petitioner submit that she is similarly situated as the petitioners in the decision rendered by this Court in CWP (T) No. 14232 of 2008, titled Nek Ram and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 17.11.2009. It is further submitted that the decision has also been implemented. In case the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in the judgment, referred to above, similar treatment shall be given to the petitioner herein also, after verifying the facts, within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the writ petition and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, by the petitioner before the second respondent.
2. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Justice Kurian Joseph),Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011( ms/hl)
(Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), Judge.