High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 06 SHI CK 0080

State of H.P. and Others vs Prithvi Singh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 21 June 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kurian Joseph, C.J · Sanjay Karol, J
CASE NUMBER
C. Review No. 61 of 2011 and CWP No. 211 of 2008

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 · 295 words

Kurian Joseph, C.J.

CMP(M) No. 400 of 2011

1.

Heard, Allowed.

Civil Review Petition No. 61 of 2011

2.

This is an application for review of the judgment dated 30.7.2010 passed in CWP No. 211 of 2008. The writ Petitioner approached this Court for regularization. It appears that inadvertently the matter has been tagged with a bunch of cases dealing with claim of the people for counting 50% of their daily waged service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Sarab Dayal, CWP No. 180 of 2001 decided on 19.7.2007 That is not the issue in the writ petition. In view of the mistake apparent on the face of the judgment the judgment dated 30.7.2010 in CWP No. 211 of 2008 is reviewed and the said judgment is recalled.

CWP No. 211 of 2008

3.

The State has filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has ordered the Petitioners to consider the case of the private Respondent in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in P.V. Papanna and others Vs. K. Padmanabhaiah, It is the contention of the State that the private Respondent is a Nepali citizen hence decision in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of H.P. will not apply. We find force in the submission. However the judgment that is applicable to the private Respondent is judgment of this Court, dated 27.7.2009, passed in CWP No. 1594 of 2008 titled Man Singh v. State of H.P. and Ors. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that case of the private Respondent shall be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in Man Singh v. State of H.P. and Ors.