K.C. VERMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner mainly claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:

(2.) WHEN the case came up for hearing on 30.5.2014, on the application for early hearing having been preferred by the petitioner, it is stated by the learned counsel that the matter in issue is infact covered by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.) in CWP(T) No. 5467 of 2008 titled as Chet Ram and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the juniors of the petitioner have infact been conferred with the benefits as sought for in the present petition and the judgment in Chet Ram's case (supra) stands implemented.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, once the juniors of the petitioner have been granted the benefits, as claimed by the petitioner, there is no reason to deny the petitioner the said benefits. No doubt, the State has expressed its apprehension that granting relief to the petitioner would amount to opening the pandora box as hundreds and thousands of similarly situated persons would be approaching the Court. This contention of the respondents -State is totally misconceived and ill -founded as this Court has no jurisdiction or authority to prevent any person from approaching the Court for redressal of his/her grievance, which needless to say, is required to be determined within the fore corners of law.