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
7 paragraphs · 262 words@JUDGEMENTTAG- JUDGEMENT
Satyen Vaidya, J
Notice. Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned Addl. Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical issue, as raised in the instant petition by petitioner, stands finally adjudicated upon by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.01.2023 in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani and Anr., along with connected matters. He further submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, at this stage, in case time bound directions are issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surajmani (supra)
Prayer being innocuous is not opposed.
The instant petition is accordingly disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within eight weeks from today strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.01.2023 in LPA No. 165 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani and Anr., along with connected matters, by passing a detailed and reasoned order. Needless to say that in case petitioner is found identically situated as the beneficiaries in the cases decided vide aforesaid judgment dated 12th January, 2023, the petitioner shall also be extended all such benefits as made available to beneficiaries therein within further period of four weeks.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.