Padam Singh vs Hrtc And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 30 HP

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                              Execution Petition No.500 of 2020
                                                     Date of Decision: 1.1.2021
               _______________________________________________________




                                                                        .
    Padam Singh                                                              ......Petitioner.





                                           Versus
    HRTC and Anr.                                                          ....Respondents.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1?
    For the petitioner:            Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, through Video





                                   Conferencing.
    For the respondents:           Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, through Video
                                   Conferencing.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present execution petition filed under Clause 16(1) of

the HP High Court Original Side Rules, 1997, prayer has been made on

behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of

order/judgment dated 11.8.2017, passed by the Erstwhile HP State

Administrative Tribunal in OA (M) No. 336 of 2017, whereby the Tribunal

below having taken note of the statement made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated

17.7.2014, passed in CWP No. 3050 of 2014, titled Nek Ram v. State of HP and

Ors, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant strictly in

light of aforesaid judgment and grant similar benefit to him, if he is found

similarly situate within a period of two months from the date of production of

certified copy of the order. Since no action, whatsoever, came to be taken

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

at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by

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

2. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents states

.

that though she has every reason to presume that by now, order/judgment

alleged to have been not implemented, must have been implemented in its

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

eight weeks.

3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by the learned

counsel for the respondents, this Court sees no reason to keep present

petition alive and accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the

respondents to do the needful in terms of judgment alleged to have been

not implemented within a period of eight weeks, failing which petitioner

would be at liberty to get the present petition revived so that appropriate

action towards implementation of the judgment is taken.

    1st January, 2021                                 ( Sandeep Sharma ),




    manjit                                                 Judge.