Shakuntla Devi vs State Of H.P. & Anr

Satyen Vaidya, J

Notice. Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004/2017 titled as ‘Taj Mohammad & Ors. Vs. State of HP & Ors.’ decided on 03.08.2023. He further submits that the petitioner has already moved a representation before the Competent Authority, copy of which has been placed on record, as Annexure P-3 and the petitioner shall be satisfied at this stage in case directions are issued to the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, Annexure P-3, in a time-bound manner.

Prayer being innocuous is not opposed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to the Competent Authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation of petitioner, Annexure P-3, within eight weeks from the date of production of this order, strictly, in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004/2017, titled as ‘Taj Mohammad & Ors. vs. State of HP & Ors.’, decided on 03.08.2023. In case, the petitioner herein is found similarly situated to the private respondents in Taj Mohammad (supra), she will also be granted the same benefits as have been granted to the private respondents in above referred case.

It is clarified that in the event of petitioner found entitled to monetary benefits, the same shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date of filing of this petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

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