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
5 paragraphs · 183 wordsTarlok Singh Chauhan, J
Notice. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue in question is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.4.2013 in CWP No. 1853 of 2009, case titled as “Arpana Bali Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. It is a matter, which is required to be considered by the employer.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decision and if the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid judgment, then the same and similar benefits as extended in CWP No. 1853 of 2009 ( supra) be also extended to the petitioner herein. This entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
For compliance, list on 1.3.2023.