Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19913 (HP)

RAVINDER MOHAN v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/11244/2025 · 2025-07-14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11244 & 11246/2025 Decided on: 14.07.2025 1. CWP No. 11244/2025 Ravinder Mohan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No. 11246/2025 Sangeeta …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s): Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondent(s): Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, in both the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost common substantive reliefs. Relief clause herein is extracted from CWP No. 11244/2025:- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “a. Respondents be directed to release the higher stage of pay of Rs.30,500/- to the petitioner w.e.f. his completing two years of regular service as Patwari. b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pending arrear’s along with interest to the petitioner.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner(s) have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representations to the competent authority for the redresssal of their grievances raised in these writ petitions. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the petitioner(s) would be preferring representations within two weeks from today. In case, such representations are so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner(s). 5. These instant petitions are disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2025(rohit)