Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37035 (HP)

JEET RAM v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/19889/2025 · 2025-12-17

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19889 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jeet Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. L.S.Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, who at present is working as TGT(Arts) in Government Senior Secondary School, Seri Banglow, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is that despite his being senior to many persons, he has been ignored for promotion to the post of Lecturer, whereas persons junior to him have been promoted. Though, before approaching this Court petitioner filed representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) for redressal of his grievance to the competent authority, but since nothing was heard from the respondents, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned Deputy Advocate General, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure that pending representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner is decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. 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, taking note of the rules occupying the fields. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 17,2025 (shankar)