Milap Chand vs State Of H.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 17203 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8231 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Milap Chand .......Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals

and Ms. Sunaina, Deputy Advocate

General.

____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner states that

his client would be content and satisfied in case prayer made in the

instant petition is considered and decided by the competent authority

in terms of judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed by Division Bench of

this Court in CWPNo.342 of 2021, titled Yashwant Singh and others

vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, alongwith connected

matters and judgment dated 4th May 2017 passed by Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2309 of 2016, tilted Saroj Devi vs.

State of H.P. and another alongwith connected matter, in a time

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing

the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on

behalf of the petitioner.

.

2. Having perused the averments contained in the petition

as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied

upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition

already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgments and as such,

no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either of the parties, if the

respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the

petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition

is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and

decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments

(supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. In

case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioners in the

aforesaid judgments, he would be extended similar benefits. Needless

to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant

order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

pass detailed speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the

petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if

he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

.

                                                         (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                              Judge





    October 31,2023
       (shankar)





                      r           to