Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajinder Singh Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 5 September, 2018
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2001 of 2018 .
Decided on: September 5, 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajinder Singh Verma ................Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner r : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. AAG with Mr. J.K.Verma, Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta Goswami and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, AAG's for respondents No.1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (oral):
Petitioner, by the medium of this petition, has mainly prayed for the following reliefs:
"A) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents no.4 to give the employment to the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh Verma by considering his case under point no.7 of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme-2009 and particularly on the recommendations of the respondent no.2.
B) That the respondent no.2 may also be directed to ensure the implementation of the provisions of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme-2009 in the case of the petitioner by the respondent no.4 in a time bound period."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 22:59:35 :::HCHP 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions submits that the petitioner shall be content if a .
direction is issued to respondents to consider and decide the Annexures P-4 and P-5, within a period of three months from today. Also, petitioner does not press the issue raised in the present petition, for the relief as orally prayed for, is that of a mere direction to the respondents to consider and decide the Annexures P-4 and P-5, within a period of three months from today.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to the same.
4. No other point is urged.
5. Leaving all questions of law open, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel, more so, for the reason that the petition, as prayed for is not pressed, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide Annexures P-4 and P-5 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today, in accordance with law, by affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. It shall be open for the petitioner to place additional material before the competent authority, if any, within one week.
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 22:59:35 :::HCHP 36. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding .
the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently.
7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
8. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge September 5, 2018 (vikrant/reena) ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2018 22:59:35 :::HCHP