Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22535 (HP)

MEERA THAKUR v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/15142/2026 · 2026-09-10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15142 of 2026. Decided on : 10 th September , 2026 Meera Thakur ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Following order was passed in this matter on 03.09.2026:- “Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 02.09.2026. Let learned Deputy Advocate General to have fresh instructions about feasibility of adjusting the petitioner at any of the stations indicated by her in her relief clause No.2 viz Govt. ITI Bharari, District Bilaspur or Govt. ITI Sundernagar, District Mandi. Fresh instructions be placed on record by the next date of hearing. List on 10.09.2026.” 2. Pursuant to above, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 08.09.2026 from Director, Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Training Himachal Pradesh, Sundernagar conveying that no post of Instructor Sewing Technology is lying vacant at place indicated by the petitioner in her relief clause No.(ii). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has now joined at the transferred station, therefore, she does not press the relief clause No. (ii). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner will prefer representation to the respondent/competent authority qua the redressal of her grievance indicated in relief clause No.(i) in view of the changed scenario and directions be issued to respondent No.2/competent authority to decide the same in accordance with law. 4. Prayer is accepted. The petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer representation to respondent No.2 for redressal of her grievance as raised in relief clause No.(i) and in case the petitioner prefers such a representation within two weeks from today, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2/competent authority within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law. Decision so arrived at shall be communicated to the petitioner. 5. With aforesaid observations, the petition to stand disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2026. (jai)