_______________________________________________________ vs Hrtc And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2789 HP

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                             Execution Petition No. 131 of 2021




                                                                          .
                                                     Date of Decision: 3.5.2021





               _______________________________________________________
    Prem Chand                                                               ......Petitioner.
                                           Versus





    HRTC and Anr.                                                         ....Respondents.


    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting1?
    For the petitioner:            Mr.Sanjeev Kashyap, Advocate.
    For the respondents:           Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

    Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of present execution petition, prayer has been made

on behalf of the petitioner for implementation and execution of

order/judgment dated 9.1.2019, passed by the Erstwhile HP State

Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 7633 of 2018, 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 three months from the date of production

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

taken at the behest of the respondents pursuant to aforesaid direction

issued by the Tribunal, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant

proceedings.

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

2. Mr. Vikas Rajput, learned counsel representing the respondents

.

states that though he 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 four 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 four 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.

    3rd May, 2021                                 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
    manjit                                               Judge.