Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohinder Kumar Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 12 April, 2018
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 9485 of 2012
Date of Decision: 12.4.2018
.
______________________________________________________________________
Mohinder Kumar Sharma ......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: r Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
For respondents: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Addl. Advocate
General for respondent-State.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition filed by similarly situated petitioner stood allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court i.e., CWP No. 993 of 2005 titled as Uttra Thakur Vs. State of H.P., decided on 6.6.2008 and the same has attained finality and the judgment has also been implemented by the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 167 of 2009 a/w COPC No.154 of 2009, which reads as under:-
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 23:21:27 :::HCHP 2 "LPA No. 167 of 2009
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th July, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 27 of 2009, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others versus Mrs. Uttra Thakur & others, whereby the review petition came to be virtually dismissed, hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned .
judgment'.
2. It is apt to record herein that the respondents-State have not questioned the main judgment dated 6th June, 2008, passed in CWP No. 993 of 2005, which has given birth to the review petition and the order impugned.
3. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the appeal is not maintainable. Dismissed as such alongwith pending applications. The impugned judgment is upheld.
COPC No. 154 of 2009.
4. In view of the Judgment passed in the LPA, supra, this contempt petition is disposed of."
3. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition can be disposed of with the direction to the respondent to release the benefits, as prayed for by the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 993 of 2005.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that it will be in the interest of justice in case direction passed by this Court is that the State shall consider the case of the petitioner and if he is similarly situated as the petitioner in CWP No. 993 of 2005, then the State shall take appropriate action in the matter.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the State shall consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of release of the benefits, as has been prayed in the present petition and in case the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioner in CWP No. 993 of 2005, titled as Uttra Thakur Vs. State of H.P. and the said judgment has been implemented qua the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 23:21:27 :::HCHP 3 in the petition therein, then similar benefits be extended to the present petitioner. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from today.
.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
12th April, 2018
(Guleria)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 23:21:27 :::HCHP