Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

State Of H.P. And Another vs Udham Singh And Others on 29 March, 2016

Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                             .
                                         LPA No.         248 of 2011





                                         Decided on: 29.03.2016





    State of H.P. and another                            ...Appellants.




                                      of
                                Versus

    Udham Singh and others                               ...Respondents.



    Coram
                  rt

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?



    For the appellants:      Mr.   Shrawan      Dogra,   Advocate




                             General, with Mr. Anup Rattan & Mr.
                             Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate





                             Generals, and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy
                             Advocate General.





    For the respondents:     Ms. Komal Kumari, Advocate.



    Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 6th April, 2010, made by the Writ Court/ learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 14272 of 2008, titled as Udham ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:35 :::HCHP 2 Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners­ .

respondents herein came to be disposed of with a direction to the appellants­writ respondents to frame a scheme for providing more promotional avenues (for short "the impugned judgment").

2. The writ petitioners­respondents filed Original of Application and have sought the following reliefs amongst the others on the grounds taken in the memo of the Original rt Application:

"(i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to provide promotional avenues to the category of applicant forthwith and till the rules are framed the respondents may be directed to consider the category of the applicants for promotion of Junior Engineer forthwith along with all consequential benefits."

3. The appellants­writ respondents resisted the same by the medium of reply.

4. It is a moot question - whether the Court can issue writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities or its instrumentalities to frame a policy/scheme?

5. This Court has already dealt with the issue in a batch of LPAs, LPA No. 495 of 2012, titled as H.P. Khadi & .

Village Industries Board versus Sh. Haria Ram and others, being the lead case, decided on 28th October, 2015, and held that the Court cannot direct the State to frame a policy or of scheme. Further held that at the best, the Court can direct the State to consider for framing a policy or scheme.

6. rt In view of the above read with the facts of the present case, we deem it proper to modify the impugned judgment by providing that the writ respondents may consider to frame the policy/scheme.

7. Having said so, the appeal is disposed of and the impugned judgment is modified, as indicated hereinabove.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge March 29, 2016 ( cm Thakur ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:59:35 :::HCHP