Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32112 (HP)

MANOJ KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/16111/2025 · 2025-10-14

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16111 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Manoj Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioner, under instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file fresh representation to the competent authority for adjustment at one of the vacant stations, with further direction to respondents to consider and decide the same in time bound manner. 2. Learned Additional Advocate General states that in pursuance to previous orders passed by this Court, respondents have already adjusted the petitioner in convenient station, but in case some 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 fresh representation is filed, same shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. 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, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation within a period of one week for his adjustment at convenient station, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of fact that petitioner is physically disabled to the extent of 45% and his wife is working at AHC Katholi and is under transfer to AHC Ghumma. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 14, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)