Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunil Dutt vs Hpsebl And Others on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12511 of 2025
Date of Decision: 01.08.2025
____________________________________________________________
.
Sunil Dutt .......Petitioner
Versus
HPSEBL and Others ....Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate, for respondents
No.1 & 2.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with
Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.3/State.
____________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents in
the instant petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on
instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case
representation (Annexure P-13), having filed by him, is ordered to be
decided in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment dated 28.09.2021
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 2017 titled as
Sidha Raju Vs. State of Karnataka, which has been otherwise
implemented by the State of Himachal Pradesh by issuing notification dated
27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby all Administrative Secretaries to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh have been apprised with regard to
decision of Government of Himachal Pradesh to provide reservation in
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDS) in the
services of State Government.
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to
.
be passed in the instant proceedings, coupled with the fact that issue
otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands
adjudicated in Sidha Raju's case (supra), there appears to be no
justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise
represented by Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned
Additional Advocate General, who fairly state that pending representation, if
not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record, this Court finds that issue of reservation in
promotion to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in the services of
State Government has already been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Sidha Raju's case (supra) and after receipt of aforesaid judgment, State of
Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12) has
already decided to provide reservation in promotion to the Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities in State Government, if it is so, there appears to be
no impediment in issuing direction to the respondent to consider and decide
the claim of the petitioner, who admittedly falls in the category of Person
with Benchmark Disabilities, in a time bound manner.
4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is
disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the
pending representation (Annexure P-13) of the petitioner in light of
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, as detailed hereinabove, as well
as notification dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P-12), expeditiously, preferably
within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 speaking
order thereafter.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
August 01, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
