__________________________________________________________ vs The Hpseb Ltd. & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1241 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWPOA No.3318 of 2020

.

Date of Decision: 24.02.2021

__________________________________________________________ Amar Nath .......Petitioner

Versus The HPSEB Ltd. & Anr. ... Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate.

___________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Learned counsel representing the petitioner on

instructions states that the petitioner would be content and

satisfied in case respondents are directed to consider the case of

the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 10.9.2014, passed by

Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.179 of 2014, titled as Beg

Dass and others versus HPSEB Limited and another within

stipulated time.

2. Mr. T.S.Chauhan, learned counsel representing the

respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

behalf of the petitioner and as such, there appears to be no

impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner. Otherwise also, this Court finds from the record that

.

judgment rendered in Beg Dass case supra has attained finality on

account of dismissal of SLP filed by the respondents in Hon'ble

Apex Court.

3. Consequently, in view of the above, the present

petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to

consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of aforesaid

judgment dated 10.9.2014 rendered by Division Bench of this

Court in Beg Dass case supra within a period of four weeks and in

case petitioner is found to be similarly situate, consequential

benefits may be released expeditiously. Needless to say, authority

concerned while doing the needful would not only afford an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, rather would also

pass speaking order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file

appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still

remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands

disposed of.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge 24th February, 2021 (shankar)