Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2020 DAILYLAW 1012 (HP)

ASHOK KUMAR v. HPKVV PALAMPUR

CWP/2833/2020 · 2026-01-05

Sandeep Sharma

body2020

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2833 of 2020 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Ashok Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Choudhary Charan Singh Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Palampur … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in case titled Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Latest HLJ 2009(HP) 887 and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. 2. Ms. Aruna Chauhan, Advocate, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that she is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks in light of Paras Ram’s case (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 05,2026 (shankar)