High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 SHI CK 3081

Kaushal Jain vs State of H.P. & Anr.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla · Decided on 19 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chirag Bhanu Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CWP No.18985 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 310 words

Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge (Oral)

The short grouse of the petitioner is that he was posted as Chief Veterinary Pharmacist at SDVH Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.

2.

In pursuant to directions of this Court in CWP No.13884 of 2025, titled as Kaushal Jain versus State of H.P. and others, the petitioner had been temporarily deputed to Central Veterinary Dispensary Tiprizar, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. against a vacant post of a Veterinary Officer. However, the respondent-State has cancelled the deputation orders, directing the petitioner to rejoin his original place of posting i.e. SDVH Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.

3.

However, due to his family circumstances, more particularly, keeping in view the fact that his daughter, suffers from 80% mental disability and as such cannot be left unattended. She requires constant personal care. The petitioner thus had been constrained to make a representation to the Director of Animal Husbandry (respondent No.2), for being adjusted in the SDVH Kotkhai, District Shimla, H.P., a post which is lying vacant.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would thus contend that the petitioner would be more than happy, if the representation dated 24.09.2026 is directed to be considered and decided sympathetically by the respondent No.2 in a time bound manner.

5.

Keeping in view the innocuous nature of the request and the fact that representation of the petitioner is already pending with the respondent No.2. It is otherwise, obligatory on the respondent No.2 to consider his request being the head of the department and as such “pates familiar”, it would be conducive and in the interest of justice and fair play that the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner sympathetically within a period of four weeks from today.

6.

The petition is disposed off accordingly, so also the pending application(s) if any.