RANJEET KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/13954/2025 · 2025-08-30
Satyen Vaidya
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24267 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 24267 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 13954 of 2025
Date of decision : 30.8.2025.
Ranjeet Kumar & another
...Petitioners.
Versus State of H.P. & others
...Respondents.
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anup Ratten, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant A.G.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral):
Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 5536 of 2020, titled as, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.11.2023 alongwith connected matters, Annexure P-1. He further submits that the petitioners have already submitted a representation to the competent authority and
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
-2-
copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that the petitioners shall be satisfied at this stage in case respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the representation Annexure P-3 of the petitioners in a time bound manner in light of the judgment Annexure P-1 (supra).
3.
The prayer being innocuous is not opposed.
4.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks, in light of
judgment passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court in CWP No. 5536 of 2020, titled as, Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.11.2023 alongwith connected matters, Annexure P-1. Needless to say that in case the petitioners are found similarly situated, as the petitioners in CWP No. 5536 of 2020, they shall also be granted the benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWP No. 5536 of 2020. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya) 30th August, 2024
Judge (kck)