Asha Ram vs State Of H.P. & Ors

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

At the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, name of respondent No.3 is ordered to be corrected and the same be now read as Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division No.3, Shimla, H.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. He has also placed on record the correct memo of parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgments rendered in CWP No.2735/2010 (Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), CWP No.6167/2012 (Sukru Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) and SLP(C) No.32680/2018 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sukru Ram) decided on 28.07.2010, 06.03.2013 and 10.12.2018, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Additional Advocate General.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in light of the aforesaid judgments within a period of six weeks by passing a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.