Hem Singh vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 26 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                 Execution Petition No.499 of 2020
                                     Date of Decision: 01.01.2021
    ________________________________________________________




                                                                                      .
    Hem Singh                                 ......Petitioner





                                          Versus





    Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others
                                                  ...... Respondents
    ________________________________________________________
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1
    For the Petitioner                     : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, through Video-
                                             conferencing.
    For the Respondents :                    Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, through Video-
                              r              conferencing

    Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

By way of instant Execution Petition filed under Rule 16 (1) of

the H.P. High Court Original Side Rules, prayer has been made on behalf of

the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents to implement/

execute the judgment/order dated 15.3.2019, passed by erstwhile H.P. State

Administrative Tribunal in OA(M) No.126 of 2019, titled as Hem Singh vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment (Annexure P-1)

alleged to have been violated, reveals that learned Tribunal below having

taken note of the statement made by learned counsel representing the

petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the

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

judgment dated 17.7.2014 rendered by this Court in CWP No.3050 of

2014, titled Nek Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,

.

disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents /

competent authority to grant benefit of aforesaid judgment to the

petitioner, if he is found to be similarly situate, within a period of three

months from the date of production of certified copy of the order/judgment.

Since, despite there being specific direction to do the needful within a

period of three months, respondents have failed to grant the benefit to the

petitioner in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Nek Ram's case

supra, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

3. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel representing the

respondents while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, states that

though she has every reason to believe and presume that by now aforesaid

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

with, but if not, same would be complied with within a period of sixt

weeks from today.

4. Consequently, in view of the fair statement made by learned

counsel representing the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep the

present petition alive and as such, same is accordingly disposed of with the

direction to the respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment/order

dated 15.3.2019, passed by learned Tribunal below in OA (M) No. 126 of

2019, positively within a period of six weeks, if not already done, failing

which, petitioner would be at 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
    January 01,2021
          (shankar)




                         r         to