Between:- R vs Therefore
2021 Latest Caselaw 4015 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                  ON THE 19th 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.4671 of 2021

      Between:- r
      VIKAS KUMAR,
      SON OF LATE SH. PREM LAL,

      R/O VILAGE GUWANI,
      P.O. RATHIAR, TEHSIL CHAMBA,
      DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.


                                               .....PETITIONER

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




      AND





    1. H.R.T.C. THROUGH ITS
       MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHIMLA





    2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
       H.R.T.C., DHARAMSHALA,
       DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

    3. REGIONAL MANAGER,
       H.R.T.C., CHAMBA UNIT,
       DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.
                                        .....RESPONDENTS




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:31 :::CIS
                                        2


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

    _____________________________________________________
                   This petition coming on for admission 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.

30.01.2017 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-2).

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




    August 19, 2021
           (vt)
                     r       to            ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
                                                   Judge