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 · 218 wordsSatyen Vaidya, J
Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, titled as Taj Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors., decided on 03.08.2023. He further submits that petitioner shall be content in case the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in a time bound manner in light of judgment ibid.
Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by directing respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2004 of 2017 alongwith connected matters, within eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order. In case, the petitioner is found similarly situated as petitioners in CWP No. 2004 of 2017, he will also be granted the same benefits as granted to petitioners in above referred case.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.