Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 29891 (HP)

PURAN CHAND SHARMA v. THE HPU AND ANOTHER

CWP/5140/2025 · 2025-10-27

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 ( 2025:HHC:35501 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7112 of 2024 a/w CWP Nos. 7110, 7114 of 2024, 5138 and 5140 of 2025. Decided on: 27th October, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CWP No. 7112/2024 Amar Nath Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another .....Respondents 2. CWP No. 7110/2024 Jagdish Ram …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another .....Respondents 3. CWP No. 7114/2024 Dola Ram …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another .....Respondents 4. CWP No. 5138/2025 Kiran Bala Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another .....Respondents 5. CWP No. 5140/2025 Puran Chand Sharma …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ( 2025:HHC:35501 ) Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned Additional Advocate General submits that respondent No.2 does not intend to file any reply to the writ petitions. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, respondent No.1-University has also not filed reply. These similar matters have been accordingly taken up for hearing. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for the grant of almost identical relief. The prayer clause of lead case being CWP No. 7112/2024 (Amar Nath Sharma versus Himachal Pradesh University and another) is extracted hereinafter: - “(i) The impugned action of the respondents, vide office order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-6) and office order dated 28.05.2024 ( Annexure P-7) qua the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside while issuing writ in the nature of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the full arrear to the petitioner from the date of 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 3 ( 2025:HHC:35501 ) his retirement, in view of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P versus Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, 2015(8) SCC page 347 followed in 2021 Vol. 13 SCC page 225, while issuing in the nature of mandamus.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner(s), issues involved herein and the grievance raised by the petitioner(s) in these writ petitions have already been adjudicated in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma Vs. H.P. University & Anr.2 Learned counsel further submits that the directions issued in Dr. Hem Raj Sharma2 be accordingly issued in the instant cases as well and the cases be disposed of in light of said decision. Learned counsel for the respondents admit the above position and submit that respondent No.1 has no objection in case the present petitions are decided and directions are issued in light of decision rendered in Dr.Hem Raj Sharma2, relevant portion of which, runs as under: - “5. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1-University is directed to pay arrears of Secretariat Pay to the petitioner for the remaining period, i.e. from the date of petitioner’s superannuation on 31.08.2018 till the date from which the arrears have actually been released in his favour. This exercise be completed within a period of 2 CWP No. 6284/2024 decided on 12.09.2025 4 ( 2025:HHC:35501 ) six weeks from today, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 5% per annum.” 4. In view of above, these writ petitions to stand disposed of in terms of the directions issued in Dr.Hem Raj Sharma2. The judgment and the findings rendered therein will mutatis mutandis apply to the case of the petitioner(s) as well. The respondents are directed to do the needful within six weeks in terms of the directions issued in the case of Dr.Hem Raj Sharma2. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 27, 2025 Judge yogesh