Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 977 (HP)

VEENA KUMARI v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1825/2026 · 2026-02-12

Romesh Verma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:3480 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1825 of 2026 Decided on : 12.02.2026 _______________________________________________________ Veena Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court for the following main reliefs: (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and impugned office order dated 09.02.2026, Annexure P-1, may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner; (ii) That in alternate, a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent department to adjust the petitioner at any other suitable station in view of her family circumstances; (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent department to decide representation filed by petitioner in a time bound manner.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied in case the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the concerned authorities, for the redressal of her grievances, by giving stations of her convenience. 3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction, that in case, the present petitioner files a representation to the concerned authorities within a period of three days from today, in that case, the same shall be sympathetically considered and decided by the concerned authorities within a period of two weeks, thereafter. 4. Needless to say, that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the concerned authorities is/are at liberty to take decision in accordance with law. 5. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. 12th February, 2026 ( Romesh Verma ) (Kiran) Vacation Judge