Rajinder Parasad vs State Of H.P. Through Secretary Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 183 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                           Execution Petition No. 10 of 2021
                            Date of Decision: 05.01.2021
    _____________________________________________________




                                                                       .
    Rajinder Parasad                                                 ......Petitioner





                                           Versus
    State of H.P. through Secretary of HPSEBL and another





                                                             ....Respondents


    Coram





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

    For the petitioner:            Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.


    For the respondents:  Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.
    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Through Video Conferencing

By way of instant Execution Petition, prayer has been

made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of directions to the

respondents to implement/execute the judgment/order dated

19.04.2018, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal

in OA (M)No. 231 of 2018, titled Rajinder Parsad Sethi vs. State

of H.P. and another, whereby learned Tribunal below while

allowing the original application, having been filed by the petitioner,

directed the respondents to modify memorandum dated

29.03.2013 to the extent that the benefit of enhancement of

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

retirement age is also extended to the hearing impaired also to

which category the applicant belongs from 58 to 60 years as

specified under Section 2(1) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

.

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,

1995.

2. Having heard learned counsel representing the

respondents and perused the material available on record, this

Court finds that aforesaid judgment rendered by Tribunal below

was laid challenge before the Division Bench of this Court by way

of CWP No. 1577 of 2018, but the same was dismissed vide

judgment dated 5.11.2018. Though, aforesaid judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court was taken in appeal before the

Hon'ble Apex Court, but the same was also dismissed.

3. Otherwise also, perusal of the reply filed by the

respondents clearly reveals that judgment sought to be

implemented/executed in the case at hand was not being

implemented on account of pendency of appeal before the Hon'ble

Apex Court. Apart from above, another ground, which has been

raised for not implementing the judgment sought to be executed in

the instant proceedings is that Government has already withdrawn

notification. Since, appeal having been filed by the State has been

dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court, judgment sought to be executed

in the instant proceedings has attained finality and as such,

respondents have no option, but to implement the same.

4. Faced with aforesaid situation, Mr. Lakshay Thakur,

.

learned counsel representing the respondents, prays for and is

granted 6 weeks' time to do the needful in terms of judgment

sought to be executed in the instant proceedings. Having taken

note of aforesaid undertaking given by learned counsel

representing the respondents, there appears to be no justification

to keep the present petition alive and same is accordingly disposed

of with the direction to the respondents to do the needful

expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks, failing which,

petitioner would beat liberty to get the present proceedings revived,

so that appropriate action, in accordance with law, is taken towards

implementation of the judgment/order, sought to be executed in the

instant proceedings.

( Sandeep Sharma ) Judge

5th January, 2021 (reena)