Sadanand Sharma vs State Of H.P. & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 17709 HP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                       CWP No. 8738 of 2023
                                                       Date of Decision: 08.11.2023




                                                                                         .

           Sadanand Sharma                                                       .....Petitioner.
                                               Versus
           State of H.P. & others                                           .....Respondents.





          Coram
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
         Whether approved for reporting?1





          For the petitioner:                 Mr. C.S.Thakur, Advocate.

          For the respondents:                Mr. Y.P. S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
                                              General.

         Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

Present petition has been filed seeking following

substantive relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 25.10.2023 i.e. Annexure P-

2 within time bound period in the interest of justice and fair play.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to adjust/transferred the petitioner from GPS

Kotla Mangan to GPS Kala Amb Education Block Surla, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. , where the incumbent is going to the superannuate on 31.11.2023 or GPS Surla, Education Block Surla, Tehsil- Nahan , District Sirmour, H.P. where the post of CHT is likely to be vacated due to promotion of the incumbent or in and around Nahan Town in the interest of justice and fair play."

2. From a perusal of the petition, it is evident that

representation in the case at hand was made on 25.10.2023.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

3. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Section

21(i)(b) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The legislative intent with

.

respect to period of limitation prescribed is evident from the aforesaid

Section. A perusal whereof categorically reflects that in case, an

individual makes a representation before the concerned authority, then

the period prescribed wherein after a cause of action accrues in favour

of the petitioner, is six months. In the case at hand, six months has not

elapsed, hence, present petition is premature.

4. In view of aforesaid, present petition, being premature is

dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

November 8, 2023 (Nisha)