AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 237 wordsJyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are heard at this stage.
Petitioners’ grievance is that their representations, annexed with the respective writ petitions, seeking applicability of Ghanshyam Dass and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others[CWP No.2056 of 2023, decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024], have not been decided till date by the respondents/competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority(s) are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representations in accordance with law within a fixed-time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer.
Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matters, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Dass2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.