Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33344 (HP)

OMINDER SINGH v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/19227/2025 · 2025-12-09

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19227 of 2025 Date of Decision: 9.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ominder singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur and Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 17.7.2025, titled as CWPOA No. 1818 of 2020, titled as Ram Murti v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., and as such, he would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments in a time bound manner. - 2 - 2. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 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 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-4) in light of Ram Murti (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. 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 a speaking order thereupon. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 9, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge