Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27481 (HP)

RISHI PAL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1284/2025 · 2025-03-04

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. 1284/2025 Decided on: 04.03.2025 Rishi Pal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Skandh Shah, Advocate vice Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- ““(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned office order whereby the petitioner been ordered to be retired from service on 30.04.2021 in view if the law laid down in case of Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P decided on 28.05.2024. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the Respondents to grant compensation equivalent to emoluments w.e.f. 30.04.2021 to 30.04.2023 with the further 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 direction to the respondents to count the period w.e.f. 30.04.2021 to 30.04.2023 in favor of the petitioner for all service benefits in the interest of justice.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th March, 2025(rohit)