Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Kurian Joseph, & V.K. Ahuja, Judge.
Asha Sharma. - Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & another. - Respondents.
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Mandamus
Headnote
Mandamus - Promotion - Junior Scale Stenographer - The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's case for promotion as Junior Scale Stenographer and take appropriate action within two months in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion as Junior Scale Stenographer and grant consequential benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion and take appropriate action within two months.
Issues: Prayer for mandamus to consider promotion case and grant consequential benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioner's representation for promotion was pending before the second respondent and directed them to take appropriate action within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's case for promotion and grant consequential benefits.
For the petitioner:Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Bhavana Dutta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Kurian Joseph,
The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued and respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Junior Scale Stenographer in the respondent corporation with effect from due date, i.e. November, 2009 being the senior most Steno-typist and fully eligible for promotion as such and with further prayer to grant consequential benefits flowing thereto.”
2. It is seen that Annexure P-4, representation is pending before the second respondent. There will be a direction to the second respondent to look into Annexure P-4 and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner before the second respondent.
3. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
