Dhyan Singh vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3363 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                              Execution Petition No.157 of 2021
                              Date of Decision: 02.08.2021
    __________________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Dhyan Singh                                                     ......Petitioner





                                           Versus
    Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr.                   ....Respondents





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    ________________________________________________________





    For the petitioner:     Mr. Shubham Sharma, Advocate.

    For the respondents:
                       r           Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Advocate.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through Video Conferencing

By way of present execution petition filed under Clause

16(1) of the HP High Court Original Side Rules 1997, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of

order/judgment dated 06.03.2019,, passed by the Erstwhile HP State

Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 820 of 2019, whereby the Tribunal

below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated

17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of

HP and Ors, directed the respondents to consider the case of the

applicant strictly in light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit

to him, if he is found similarly situate within a period of three months from

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

the date of production of certified copy of the order. Since no action,

whatsoever, came to be taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant

to aforesaid direction issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached

.

this Court in the instant proceedings.

2. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the

respondents states that though he has every reason to presume that by

now, order/judgment alleged to have been violated, must have been

complied with in its totality, but if not, same would be definitely complied

with within a period of three weeks.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the

learned counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep

present petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction

to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to

have been violated within a period of three weeks, failing which petitioner

would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate

action towards implementation of the judgment is taken.

( Sandeep Sharma ) Judge

2nd August, 2021 (reena)