Ramesh Chand vs State Of H.P. & Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

Leaned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided by the respondents/competent authority in terms of judgment rendered in Baldev v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (1) 151. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner.

Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied upon vis-a-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment.

Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Baldev’s case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, she would be extended similar benefits. Needles to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.