________________________________________________________ vs Himachal Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 423 HP

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                              SHIMLA
                                                      Execution Petition No.19 of 2021
                                      Date of Decision: 07.01.2021




                                                                                      .

    ________________________________________________________
    Om Prakash                                     ......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. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate,
                              r             through video-conferencing.

    For the Respondents                   : Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, through
                                            Video- 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

10.10.2018, passed by erstwhile H.P. State Administrative

Tribunal in OA(M) No.752 of 2018, titled as Om Prakash vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.

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

2. Careful perusal of aforesaid order/judgment

(Annexure P-1) alleged to have been violated, reveals that

.

learned Tribunal below while disposing of the original

application, directed the respondents / competent authority to

release due and admissible arrears of pay and allowances

alongwith revised pension and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity

to the applicant/petitioner within a period of two months. Since,

no steps, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the

pondents to implement/execute aforesaid order passed by learned r res-

Tribunal below, petitioner has approached this Court in the in-

stant 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 eight 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 10.10.2018,

.

passed by learned Tribunal below in OA (M) No. 752 of 2018,

positively within a period of eight 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/

r to order, sought to be executed in the instant proceedings.

(Sandeep Sharma),

Judge January 07,2021 (shankar)