Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 901 (HP)

MADAN LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-10-21

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. THE writ petitions are filed with the identical prayers, one set of such prayers is as under: (a) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned orders dated 21/08/2001 (Annexure P-4), dated 13/12/2001 (Annexure P-5) and 04/06/2013 (Annexure P-7), as unconstitutional and illegal and contrary to the law. (b) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to pay the pay and allowances to the petitioner in accordance with the decision of this Hon'ble Court in CWP (T) No. 8451/2008 Ram Lal Sharma Vs. State of HP and others decided on 30/11/2010 as similar benefits have already been given to similarly situated persons by the . respondent department with all consequential benefits; (c) to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case and may pass of such further writ, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, just and expedient in the circumstances of the case." 2. PASSED by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour, re -fixing the pay of the petitioners in terms of the judgment dated 29.11.2010 passed by this Court in CWP (T) No. 8211/2008 titled as Jagdish Attri and others versus State of H.P. We find that petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing, prior to passing of the said order, which undoubtedly entails civil consequences. Also, it is brought to our notice that with regard to similarly situated persons, this Court vide judgment dated 30th November, 2010 passed in CWP (T) No. 8451 of 2008 titled as Ram Lal Sharma and others versus State of H.P. and another, under similar circumstances, has quashed a similar order. Learned counsel submits that petitioners shall approach the respondents by way of representation(s), inviting their attention to the judgment and other relevant factors in their favour. We allow the petitioners to do so, within two weeks from today. Upon receipt thereof, the competent authority shall positively decide the same within a period of four weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing/representation to all concerned. Till such decision is taken, we stay the operation of order dated 4th June, 2013 (Annexure P -7). We allow the petitioners to do so, within two weeks from today. Upon receipt thereof, the competent authority shall positively decide the same within a period of four weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing/representation to all concerned. Till such decision is taken, we stay the operation of order dated 4th June, 2013 (Annexure P -7). It is clarified that in case petitioners do not file the representation(s) within two weeks, interim order shall of automatically stand vacated. 3. WITH the aforesaid observations, all the writ petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.