Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others vs Sanjay Kumar on 29 August, 2016

Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                    CWP No.2189 of 2016.
                                    Decided on: August 29, 2016.




                                                              .

    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                    ..........Petitioners.
                      Versus
    Sanjay Kumar                                            .......Respondent.
    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
    The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.




                                     of
    Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
    For the petitioners:        Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General,
                                with Mr.Romesh Verma & Mr.Anup
                                Rattan, Addl.A.Gs., and Mr.Kush Sharma,
                  rt            Dy.A.G.
    For the Respondent:         Nemo.

    Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral)

Subject matter of the writ petition is the order, dated 27th October, 2015, made by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application No.2017 of 2015, filed by the Applicant (respondent herein), came to be disposed of, (for short, the impugned order).

2. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 3 of the impugned order herein:

"3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the original application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of the averments made in the present application, the observations made in CWP No.9094 of 2013 and the connected matters and to extend similar benefit to the applicant in accordance with law, if the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:46 :::HCHP ...2...

said judgment has attained finality and implemented, within .

a period of four months."

3. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have to pass consideration order in terms of the mandate of paragraph 3 of the impugned order. We wonder why the petitioners have filed the of instant writ petition.

4. Having said so, the writ petition is disposed of rt accordingly, alongwtih pending CMPs, if any.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.

29th August, 2016. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (Tilak) Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:05:46 :::HCHP