Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14939 (HP)

RAMESH CHAND v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/9121/2025 · 2025-06-05

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9121 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 22.2.2022, passed by Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.(alongwith connected matter) and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states - 2 - that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner in light of Baldev (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. June 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge