Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9244 (HP)

KULDIP KUMAR v. THE HPSEBL AND ANOTHER

CWP/3741/2025 · 2025-03-18

Sandeep Sharma

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3741 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.3.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Kuldip Kumar. ……...Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to consider and decide representations (Annexure P-5 and P-6) of the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 11.4.2023, passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2471 of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 6185/2020), case titled as “The Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Ors. v. C.P. Mundinamani and Ors..”, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 2. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in - 2 - the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representations of the petitioner in light of C.P. Mundinamani’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within six weeks. 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 the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. All pending applications stand disposed of. March 18, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge