The Himachal Pradesh High Court upholds the practice of permitting withdrawal of writ petitions with liberty to file afresh, maintaining consistency with prior directions issued in similar cases regarding recovery of monetary benefits from government employees. The judgment does not overrule or narrow previous precedents, and affirms existing judicial procedures, with persuasive value for similar administrative matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/15237/2025 of RAMA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010501132025 |
| Date of Registration | 19-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench – Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive on procedure for withdrawal and liberty to refile; affirms and refers to earlier administrative writ decisions. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior directions issued in Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors. v. State of H.P., Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of H.P. |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Service Law / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether the petitioner is barred from filing afresh on the same cause after withdrawing writ with liberty, especially where previous directions in related matters exist. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court granted the request of the petitioner to withdraw the current writ petition, while expressly granting liberty to approach the Court afresh, if so advised. This approach is in continuity with prior judicial directions mandating reconsideration of monetary recovery issues per the Madan Lal and S.S. Chaudhary judgments. There was no order on record showing consideration of the previous directions by respondents or a challenge thereto. This procedural holding affirms the petitioner’s right to re-invoke writ jurisdiction in similar circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of H.P. & Anr. (CWPOA No. 7531/2019), State of H.P. & Ors. v. Madan Lal & Ors. (LPA No. 254/2023), S.S. Chaudhary v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWPOA No. 3145/2019), Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors. v. State of H.P. (CWPOA No. 3523/2019) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court’s reasoning is based on compliance with prior directions in similar cases involving challenge to monetary recovery from employees, reliance on the principle that withdrawal does not cause prejudice to future litigation in the absence of an order to the contrary. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought decision on a representation for refund of an amount recovered in 2012 and deposited in 2015, in light of Madan Lal and related judgments. The petitioner was party to earlier similar litigation which directed respondents to decide such matters as per those precedents. No order evidencing such consideration by respondents was produced. Petitioner sought withdrawal with liberty to refile. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh for procedural handling of withdrawal and liberty to file afresh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with administrative/service law cases concerning monetary recovery and withdrawal of writs |
| Follows | Follows Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors. v. State of H.P. (CWPOA No. 3523/2019), Madan Lal & Ors. v. State of H.P. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh is permissible when prior directions in similar matters exist and have not been complied with or challenged.
- Reinforces the court’s willingness to permit petitioners to seek redress again, provided no final orders have been passed or brought on record by the respondent authorities in compliance with prior mandates.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to safeguard clients’ rights where administrative authorities have not passed required orders after earlier court directions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner sought application of earlier judgments (Madan Lal and S.S. Chaudhary) for recovery of monetary benefits allegedly wrongfully deducted by the State, presenting a pending representation.
- The petitioner was previously a party to similar litigation (Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors.), in which the High Court had directed respondents to reconsider cases according to said precedents.
- The present record disclosed no respondent order per previous directions; nor was there challenge to such order.
- On counsel’s request, the Court permitted withdrawal of the present petition with express liberty to file afresh, emphasizing that withdrawal in this context does not cause prejudice to pursuing the same relief subsequently, particularly as procedural requirements and prior directions remain unfulfilled.
- The Court’s approach is consistent with procedural fairness and efficiency, especially in administrative/service law disputes involving recurring issues regarding recovery of dues.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought applicability of Madan Lal & Ors. and S.S. Chaudhary precedents for refund of recovered amount.
- Argued that no order had been passed by respondents in compliance with directions issued in previous related litigation (Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors.).
- Requested liberty to withdraw the present petition with the option to refile, as procedural steps for resolution were not concluded.
Respondent
- No specific arguments recorded or considered by the Court beyond counsel appearance; judgment revolves around withdrawal request.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a government employee, sought refund of an amount allegedly wrongfully recovered from him following a recovery notice in 2012 and deposited by him in 2015. The petitioner had previously participated in identical litigation (Inder Singh Bhardwaj & Ors.), where the High Court had directed respondent-State authorities to reconsider monetary recovery cases with reference to binding precedents (Madan Lal, S.S. Chaudhary). As the State had not produced any consequential order, the petitioner moved the present writ, but then preferred withdrawal to preserve the right to re-approach the Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not reference or interpret any specific statutory provision.
- Addresses writ procedure and the legal effect of withdrawal with liberty to refile in the context of administrative actions by State entities.
Procedural Innovations
- Explicitly affirms and applies the practice of allowing petitioners to withdraw writ petitions with liberty to file again on the same cause or representation, particularly where administrative authorities have not complied with previous court directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court affirms the approach adopted in prior cases concerning the procedural rights of petitioners in administrative/service law writ matters.