Between:- R vs Therefore
2021 Latest Caselaw 3813 HP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 10th DAY OF AUGUST 2021

                               BEFORE




                                                        .

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,

                       ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE





                                  &

            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA





                  CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4436 of 2021

     Between:-      r
     KULDEEP SINGH
     SON OF SH. PIAR CHAND,

     R/O VILLAGE & P.O. KARIYARA,
     TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
                                                         .....PETITIONER


     (BY SH. H.R. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)

     AND




1.   HRTC THROUGH ITS MANAGING
     DIRECTOR, SHIMLA-3





2.   DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HRTC,
     HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.





3.   REGIONAL MANAGER, HRTC,
     DEHRA UNIT, DISTRICT KANGRA,
     H.P.

                                                    .....RESPONDENTS

     ( BY SH. V.B. VERMA, ADVOCATE)
     _____________________________________________________




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:15 :::CIS
                                         2




                   This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble

    Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, passed the following:




                                                             .

                                  ORDER

The prayer of the petitioner is to the effect that the

respondent-Corporation be ordered to regularize his services w.e.f.

12.12.2014 with all consequential benefits.

2.

The plea of the petitioner is that the said issue is

covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.2110 of

2019, titled Rajinder Kumar Versus Himachal Road Transport

Corporation & another, decided on 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-9).

Therefore, the limited prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents

be directed to consider his request, based on the aforesaid judgment

of this Court.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

submits that the prayer of the petitioner will be considered in the light

of the aforesaid judgment, subject to any appeal or otherwise that

may be filed.

4. In view of the submissions made, the petition is

disposed off. The respondents are directed to consider the request

of the petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by this

Court in CWP No.2110 of 2019, titled Rajinder Kumar Versus

Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, in accordance with

law.

.

                                           ( Ravi Malimath )
                                         Acting Chief Justice





                                         ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
    August 10, 2021                              Judge
           (vt)      r